Another liberal who "doesn't get it"


cracked butt
March 30, 2004, 08:14 AM
Saw this letter to the editor in this month's issue of Outdoor Life.

Gun-Toting Liberals
As a liberal hunter and gun-owning Democrat, I was happy to see the recent Snap Shots article acknowledging that I am not such an anomaly [“The Democratic Party Wants You,” February/March].

Most Democrats I know aren’t interested in banning guns, only in “reasonable” regulation. And the fact remains that most proposed gun regulation has virtually no impact on hunters.

Frankly, I’m more worried about the government selling off the places where I camp, fish and hunt (or allowing industry to pollute those places with impunity) than I am about the government coming to get my guns.

Please continue to show that liberals and Democrats are not automatically enemies of gun owners and hunters.

Tim Howe
Wauconda, IL

If you enjoyed reading about "Another liberal who "doesn't get it"" here in archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join today for the full version!
March 30, 2004, 08:53 AM

Just for once I'd like one of these "hunters" to read the entire Constitution, Bill of Rights (including the preamble), and Declaration of Independence, and tell me where the "right to hunt" or the "right to keep and bear arms for hunting and sport" is listed anywhere...

March 30, 2004, 08:58 AM
I guess that liberal hunter wasn't paying attention when Ted Kennedy was talking about .30-30 ammo piercing armor, and the bill he introduced to ban armor piercing ammo. Being that almost any hunting round will pierce most body armor; looks like the Dem's do want the hunting rifles too.

And I second the comments about hunting and the constitution above.

BTW I don't hunt, and of all the gun owners I know, most don't hunt either. I wonder how long ago the anti's would have taken the hunting rifles if all us non-hunters weren't fighting the battle. It'd be nice if hunters like the one in the article would recognize this and reciprocate.

March 30, 2004, 08:58 AM
“reasonable” regulation

It already exists, and is called the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution, and is all that is required or necessary.

cracked butt
March 30, 2004, 10:00 AM
Thanks guys, you are a breath of fresh air.
This morning I also posted this on a Hunting forum website and most of the responses were in tune with the editorial writer's stance: evil corporations taking away hunting land is more important than rifles :barf:

March 30, 2004, 10:03 AM
Cracked Butt-I do cherish my hunting land, but the RKBA is so much more important that I can't even mention hunting in the same paragraph.

cracked butt
March 30, 2004, 10:09 AM
I should also mention that this is just some clueless fool writing into Outdoor life and from my observations is about 180 degrees different from the view on guns from the Magazine and its writers. I've been subscribing to OL and F&S for years and if anything, the magazines are strongly pro-2A.

Foreign Devil
March 30, 2004, 10:15 AM
He doesn't actually say what he means by reasonable but I have a bad feeling he may mean stupid things like the assault weapons ban.

I am a democrat and by no means are all democraats against guns. I am sort of a Zell Miller democrat(senator from Georgia). Im my area republicans have no political power anyway.

March 30, 2004, 10:17 AM
,,,Does NOT state that we have the right to keep and bear Sporting Goods.
It says that we have the right to keep and bear arms...I read that as the right to own and carry...and the 2nd doesn't make any specifications as to how, when, or where I may carry.

Just MY nickel's worth...


Brian Dale
March 30, 2004, 11:09 AM
The 2nd Amendment does NOT state that we have the right to keep and bear Sporting Goods.Another one for the Quotes file. Thanks, Tuner!

Sam Adams
March 30, 2004, 01:07 PM
This uninformed idiot, like most other lieberal Dems, needs to learn history. Those who proposed the 2nd Amendment in 1789 and ratified it in 1791 had just fought a brutal, bloody and costly war against the world's most powerful empire to win their (and our) freedom. They were engaged in creating a government that they hoped would be a beacon to all of humanity and which they hoped would last in perpetuity. In other words, they were serious men engaged in the most serious of tasks. Yet this f'ing moron thinks that in the midst of all of that seriousness, these hard-core, freedom-fighting revolutionaries would insert a clause into the basic document of our society that protected SPORT ?

That someone could even make a statement like that speaks volumes.

March 30, 2004, 01:16 PM
evil corporations taking away hunting land is more important than rifles

Just what do these idiot hunters think will happen when all "hunting land" is owned by the government ... do they think Peta and other animal rights/environazis have no pull with liberal politicritters?

What liberals like this guy don't get is if they get the guys they want in power the government may not come take your hunting rifle, but they will decide that hunting on "public land" is illegal and there won't be any of that private land owned by evil corporations (thats code word for you and me) for them to hunt on ... oh ... then they'll just come and take your guns since you don't need it to hunt anymore.

El Tejon
March 30, 2004, 01:23 PM
Tim, it's about liberty, not sport.

BTW, buy your own hunting land, you parasite. Get out of the wagon, you are heavy.

March 30, 2004, 02:17 PM
Most times I agree with things that are said on this board, and I DO agree with the point of view the basic view that there is no difference in gun ownership between a .30/.30 Marlin lever and a AR15. Neither should be regulated beyond the 2A.

However, what I do disagree with is that general attitude of this thread towards this apparently politically ignorant individual. Usually this forum is a haveb a somewhat reasonable discussion. But you all are acting as if this gun is personally fanning you with a loaded shotgun. These above comments were the same ones I saw for the range morons.

I started my gun ownership because of hunting and I continue to hunt still. My views when I started hunting where the same as the gentleman's in the letter to OL, "Why does someone need an AR, you cant hunt with it?". I soon learned my mistaken thought processes and realized that any more infringments on my 2a rights would eventually end up with me trying to hit flushing quail with a boomerang! Therefore I support RKBA to protect my right to enjoy my pastime, protect myself and my family.

Liberal Hunters (I am a borderline case) like this are an untapped resource of RKBA voting power. We need to stress that downhill slope of 2A infringements. We need to let the "sporting gentry" see that eventually their gamebags will be empty because boomerangs dont fly well in grouse coverts.

Educate this individual, dont scare him away.

El Tejon ... thats a really nasty statement to make. I do pay for government land in my taxes and support of my states DNR through contributions. I cant afford 200+ acres of land at $4000 an acre .. can you?


March 30, 2004, 02:23 PM
Most Democrats I know aren’t interested in banning guns, only in “reasonable” regulation.

Like a trout rising to a fly I must respond to your comment about "reasonable regulation". In my experience (67 years old now) that has been a real oxymoron. Each set of regulations here in Oregon has eroded more and more of my personal freedoms as a gun owner and gun user. Each time the politicians set out to regulate RKBA it is wrapped in the flag accompanied by the mantra of keeping the guns out of the hands of criminals! ! The result has been that criminals in Oregon pay no attention at all to the gun control laws but folks like me (law abiding) find that another barier has been established. Next time the legislature meets it starts again. How about enforcing the myriad of laws on the books (which is done seldom and poorly) and truly aim at the criminal element - not law abiding people? FWIW

Don Gwinn
March 30, 2004, 02:30 PM
Mike, he's from Illinois. There's almost nothing he can legally hunt with a centerfire rifle. Coyotes, maybe raccoons? He would hunt deer with a shotgun.

And I guess the fact that his state's Democratic party chose one of the most ban-happy anti-gun NUTS in the U.S. Congress to run for governorship and be its official party figurehead means nothing to him.

In Wauconda, though, most Republicans and Democrats have very few differences except which party would do the best job of implementing the ideas they both support.

March 30, 2004, 02:52 PM
axeman said:

Educate this individual, dont scare him away.

The only problem with that approach is that people of this ilk have their
minds firmly made up and won't allow a fact to confuse the issue.

Rather than try to plow the sea, why not just respond with:

"What does need have to do with it? You don't NEED a Mercedes.
A pickup truck will do. You don't NEED a Filet Mignon'...A tofu burger
will serve the same purpose. You don't even NEED a television set.
A newspaper will provide all the information and entetainment that you NEED.

When we allow the powers that be to determine what we need or don't need...where will it stop? What facet of our lives will be safe if "they" can
determine what we do or don't NEED?

I agree with the people who take offense at this moron's statements.
Ask him just who the hell he is to propose what you or I NEED...This is
AMERICA by Almighty God. I reserve the right to determine my NEEDS.

Rant off...Be of good cheer and mindful of your six.


March 30, 2004, 02:52 PM
Guys, pick your battles well, and fight them wisely.

Face it - your average hunter doesn't know, nor care, about the 2nd amendment. They don't WANT to know... Instead of informing them that we'd be pledging allegiance to the Queen of England, just let 'em know about the "reasonable" restrictions, such as bans on centerfire rifle ammunition, that politicians (of just about any party...) have tried to sneak past.

March 30, 2004, 03:00 PM
"...the second amendment is not for killing little ducks and leaving Huey and Dewey and Louie without an aunt and uncle. It is for hunting politicians, like [in] Grozny, [and in] 1776, when they take your ndependence away."
B1 Bob Dornan

"The right of citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against the tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible."
-- Senator Hubert H. Humphrey (D-Minnesota)

Sadly, it no longer seems such a remote possibility anymore.

March 30, 2004, 03:12 PM
But we do need to educate the fence sitters ... tell hunters that they're sporting arms are next. That the hobby and traditions they cherish will be legislated away from them ... then they will just look foolish driving the Land Rover in a useless Barbour upland jacket and an empty shotgun drawer.

CSMKersh ... can I use that Humphrey quote?


cracked butt
March 30, 2004, 03:21 PM
Face it - your average hunter doesn't know, nor care, about the 2nd amendment.
I've always wondered how they can not be concerned about 2A issues.

I guess I've always been exposed to both issues. It probably didn't hurt that our house was full of hunting magazines alongside my dad's Guns and Ammo and Rifleman magazines for me to read when I was a kid. I remember going to the trap club on thursday nights with my dad- everyone had NRA stickers on their vehicles, and after shooting, the guys would talk about the same kinds of stuff I find on this site. All of the guys were deer hunters, most of them waterfowl hunters as well. The range in ages was from 8 to 95. Where I was brought up, and with the people I've been exposed to, I always assumed that most hunters were progun.

March 30, 2004, 03:52 PM
After reading that letter to the editor, and this thread, I recommend everyone reading the following:

It's a Frederick Douglass speech

In the speech, Douglass rails against slavery, but his enmity is not aimed at southern states.

His blast is aimed directly at the nothern audience listening to him in Rochester, NY.

His fire is aimed at northern clergy who rationalize or who fail to condemn slavery from their pulpits, sarcastically calling these men "The Divines."

He doesn't waste much time or energy attacking the people who overtly practice the evil of slavery.

Instead, he attacks the people who help the evil of slavery to exist by doing nothing.

He attacks the people who try to find "common sense" ways to find compromise between what the anti-slavery forces want and the pro-slavery forces want.

While Douglass' message is about slavery, I think the central spirit of his remarks really do apply to the current state of RKBA and the outlook of many hunters.

The hunters who don't get it, who do nothing, who think that RKBA is not their fight, who think that "common sense" gun regulation is fine, who do not see why anyone "needs" an AR-15 are the moral and philosophical equivalent of the northern people who chose to do nothing about slavery, who thought slavery was not their fight, who even tried to find ways to compromise between slavery and freedom.

And those people need to be awakened and awakened rudely. Sometimes it does take the proverbial two-by-four across the head to get the message across.

And Frederick Douglass' speech is one of the most eloquent, talented two-by-fourings of all time.


March 30, 2004, 04:11 PM
I don't think that he's a mindless idiot falling for the Democrat line. I think that he's a Kerry campaign worker who is deliberately trying to lure hunters to vote Democrat.

El Tejon
March 30, 2004, 04:37 PM
axe, if pointing out that people are stealing from me and that I am pulling the wagon for others to ride in, then yes it is nasty. However, the truth often is.

Far too many people want something for nothing and believe the world revolves around their comfort, or, as we see, recreation. The Second Amendment has absolutely nothing to do with hunting. As well, I object to paying for another's recreation.

However, I realize these are cultural differences between me and others. As well, the IRS simply does not ask for my input when its time to write the check for another's recreation.:D

March 30, 2004, 05:22 PM
"The right of citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against the tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible."
-- Senator Hubert H. Humphrey (D-Minnesota)

Ironically spoken by the second most Socialistic person Minnesota has ever produced. (Rep. Martin Sabo being the first.) I say this knowing Gus Hall came from MN. Humphrey was an architect of 'The Great Society', that failed social(ist) experiment that expanded the welfare state, and the main reason Minneapolis is known as 'Moneyapolis' to generations of welfare recipients.
While I would like to believe HHH himself was not anti-2A, as the above quote would indicate, as VP and Senator, he certianly was in a place to know that most of the Dem. party was, and in a place to do something to influence that. Instead, he voted straight down the party line.
BTW, I would say that the 2A is the only guarantee and safe guard against arbitrary and or tyrannical government. And it is being whittled away by those whose terms in office are starting to resemble life peerages.

March 30, 2004, 06:15 PM
When they came for the fully automatic rifles, I did nothing, as I was hunter.
When they came after the Saturday Night Special, I did nothing, as I was a hunter.
When they came after Assault Weapons, I did nothing, as I am a hunter.
When they come after the Fifty Calibers, I will do nothing, as I am a hunter.
When they come after ALL handguns, I will do nothing, as I am a hunter.
When they come after my deer rifle who will stand with me?

If you don't believe this you need to read the words of Senator Fienstien.

March 30, 2004, 06:37 PM
Axeman wrote:
CSMKersh ... can I use that Humphrey quote?


Standing Wolf
March 30, 2004, 07:03 PM
Most Democrats I know aren’t interested in banning guns, only in “reasonable” regulation.

It's never hard to spot Democratic (sic) party lies.

another okie
March 30, 2004, 08:20 PM
Now I know Senator Kennedy would like to ban every privately owned firearm in the country, but I read the bill he introduced, and it did not "ban .30-.30 ammo." It gave some bureaucrat the power to ban any ammo which was found to be more able to defeat body armor than "normal" ammo of the same caliber. Now that law would be a disaster, because some bureaucrat would probably use it to ban practically all ammo in the caliber, but that's not really what the bill said. Again, I'm not, repeat, not, defending Senator Jabba the Hut, but let's be careful about what we say.

March 30, 2004, 09:30 PM
No the bill didn't say "ban .30-.30 ammo." however during his speech about the bill Kennedy did in fact make statements about .30-30 ammo piercing armor, and the bill was about banning armor piercing ammo.

March 30, 2004, 10:08 PM
Another liberal who doesn't get it... yup.... :rolleyes:

If you enjoyed reading about "Another liberal who "doesn't get it"" here in archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join today for the full version!