[Airwolf]

Prepare to be :cuss: :barf: :banghead: :cuss:

I have never seen so much crap in one place at one time since my kids were in diapers.

http://www.suntimes.com/output/outdoors/cst-spt-bowman16.html

Hunters need to separate themselves from gun nuts

February 16, 2003
BY DALE BOWMAN STAFF REPORTER

"About the time that Daddy left to fight the big war/I saw my first pistol in the general store/In the general store, when I was thirteen/Thought it was the finest thing I ever had seen/So I asked if I could have one someday when I grew up/Mama dropped a dozen eggs, she really blew up/She really blew up and I didn't understand/Mama said the pistol is the Devil's right hand.''

Steve Earle's ''The Devil's Right Hand''

Ihunt. It's the most intense and rewarding thing I do in the outdoors.

To hunt, I own guns.

They are my most valued possessions.

When I was 13, Dad gave me the family .22 rifle as my most cherished Christmas gift. When I turned 18, my 12-gauge shotgun and my deer rifle were my first important life purchases.

The only thing I asked Dad to bequeath me in his will is an ancient, open-bore, single-shot, 12-gauge shotgun my Grandpa Bowman gave him as his first gun as a boy.

Guns come with meanings for me, come with stories and histories.

So I watch with more than passing interest when an anti-gun person such as Mayor Daley steps into the political arena with gun legislation.

The latest foray came Thursday.

My first thought was, "Oh, God, not again.''

Then I picked through the highlights.

As a hunter and human being, I agreed with almost all of them.

As hunters, we must learn to separate ourselves from the gun nuts, those who would oppose every firearm restriction. Otherwise, we'll be lumped in the crackpot pile.

*A ban on military-style, semi-automatic assault weapons. I absolutely agree. It should have been done years ago. The problem for hunters is the definition of assault rifles; otherwise, it in no way affects my right to own a shotgun or rifle for hunting.

*Restrict handgun purchases to one per person per month. For my money, you could ban handguns completely. That in no way affects my right to own a shotgun or rifle for hunting.

*Gun fingerprinting. I have no problem with that other than it is another governmental intrusion into our lives. It in no way affects my right to own a shotgun or rifle for hunting.

*Lengthening the waiting period for taking possession of a handgun from three days to 10. Hey, make it a month, a year, 10 years. It in no way affects my right to own a shotgun or rifle for hunting.

*Require annual background checks of those who hold Firearm Owners Identification Cards. I think that will be a logistical nightmare and should not be enacted for that reason. Otherwise, check all you want. It in no way affects my right to own a shotgun or rifle for hunting.

*Increase the cost of a FOID card. It annoys me. It will cost me. But it in no way affects my right to own a shotgun or rifle for hunting.

*Mandate background checks of people who buy firearms at gun shows. Absolutely. That should have been in place years ago. That in no way affects my right to own a shotgun or rifle for hunting.

*State licensing of gun dealers and a state database of gun information. Go ahead. I think it will be a logistical nightmare; otherwise, it in no way affects my right to own a shotgun or rifle for hunting.

*Increased penalty for secret compartments in vehicles for weapons. Throw the book at them. That in no way affects my right to own a shotgun or rifle for hunting.
Daley's proposals make sense. But then, I am a hunter who owns guns, not a gun nut. Guns don't mean more than life to me.

Dale Bowman can be reached at outdoordb@aol.com. "Bowman's Outdoor Line'' is heard on "Outdoors with Mike Norris'' (3-4 p.m. Thursdays, 1280-AM).

[Fly320s]

I do hope that Mr. Bowman is full of sarcasm. It's hard to tell from the text.

[Calamity Jane]

:what:

If this is to be taken at face value, I simply cannot decide which one of these character traits this guy has in highest proportion: naivete, ignorance, or arrogance.

:banghead:

[Wayne D]

Here's my email to him.

I just finished reading your article "Hunters need to separate themselves from gun nuts."

What I get out of the article is that you are a selfish person who doesn't care about other people as long as it doesn't affect you. You don't care if handguns are banned because it doesn't affect you. You had better do some research in the history of gun control in other countries, most recently England and Australia, and you will find that all the restrictions imposed on handguns were eventually broadened to include all firearms including your precious "hunting" rifles.

Do some research on gun control in the U.S. and you will find that the "gun nuts" and their continued fight against intrusive gun laws, are the only reason you can still own your "hunting" guns.

You are arrogant in that you completely ignore any other reason to own a gun such as target shooting, self defense and collecting. How would you like it if all the gun collectors wrote articles saying that we need to ban hunting because all those "Bloodthirsty Hunters" give us collectors a bad name, besides those Wal-mart hunting rifles and shotguns aren't worth collecting, so who needs them?

If you want to write balanced articles you have to do the research and I also recommend looking at issues from both sides before you start.

[Blackhawk]

Otherwise, we'll be lumped in the crackpot pile.So, I'm a crackpot because I can read and understand the Constitution?

I think all Americans should be able to do the same thing, but then again, I'm a crackpot.... :rolleyes:

[Wayne D]

I should have added that the 2nd Amendment doesn't say anything about hunting. You'll notice he keeps saying, "my right to own a rifle or shotgun for hunting". He has no idea what he's talking about.

[geekWithA.45]

RANT ON.

That in no way affects my right to own a shotgun or rifle for hunting.

Well, I guess that sums up your pathetic position.


Wake up pal! The founders where NOT TALKING ABOUT HUNTING.

:fire:

How dare, you, you arrogant ***, elevate yourself, a mere slaughterer of animals, above noble citizen/defenders of human's lives, liberties, and dignity?

How dare you assert that animal killing is the only valid reason for gun ownership!

How dare you suggest that anyone who owns a gun for reasons not to your liking is a dangerous "gun nut".

How dare you, you degenerate wisp of an American so casually dismiss and trivialize sacred rights and perogatives that which we have paid for in blood to mere hunting.

Begone from my sight and my brotherhood, for I shall have none of you.

END RANT.

[meathammer]

I know there are ALOT of hunters, sportsmen, that have this same attitude. Not good. It's that whole idea of "Well, it doesn't directly affect me, so it's okay." What if somebody chooses to hunt with ONLY handguns. Then what? I have a friend who used to deer hunt with an SKS. It was all he had at the time. Should that right be taken away? Banning/restricting certain types of firearms only leads to others/more types being banned. Why can't people see this? :banghead: What do you suppose the attitude toward hunting rifles would have been if the DC sniper had been using a bolt action .30-06? That's right, the Antis would have been screaming to the politicians to ban/restrict high powered HUNTING rifles. Gun owners of all types need to get on the same page NOW! :fire:

[SkaerE]

i agree that the 2nd amendment had nothing to do with hunting. thats just crazy.

its because of people like this guy that a lot of gun laws get passed, and it makes me sick.

what will happen when this dumbass realizes that his precious hunting rifle will be lumped into the "Sniper rifle" catagory by the antis.

just a little at a time, lumping guns together in groups with 'scary' names, thats how the anti's do it, try to divide the gun owners. makes me want to puke.

some folks are really REALLY shortsighted.

[Don Gwinn]

Chicago. It's as simple as that.

[Yohan]

Here's my e-mail to him

--------------
You are a selfish, stupid, useless, pathetic, sold-out, uninformed,
idiotic, dumb, asshat. Way to go.
--------------

[Don Gwinn]

I sent this. I am under no illusion that it will make any difference to him or the Sun-Times, but maybe someone will read it.


Mr. Dale Bowman argued in a recent Sun Times edition that "Hunters Need to Separate Ourselves from Gun Nuts." I am a hunter, but I am also a shooter and a collector. I believe in self-defense, and I believe in the importance of the armed citizen as a deterrent to crime and tyranny. Most of all, I believe it is none of Richard Daley's business who I am or what guns I choose to own.

In Mr. Bowman's eyes, I gather, that makes me a "gun nut." Well, so be it. I'll take that title over some others I can think of. And I think Mr. Bowman is absolutely right. Hunters who think the way he does--that hunting is all that matters, that hunting is a Constitutional right, or that sacrificing people like me to people like Daley will somehow keep him from banning their precious hunting shotguns next--should definitely separate themselves from me and everyone like me. I don't want his company or his help. All I ask of him is that he not come whining to the "gun nuts" when his precious heirloom shotguns are being cut into chunks with torches and chopsaws. If hunters continue to insist that they're somehow different than other gun owners--not to say superior--then that's precisely what's going to happen to them, and Mr. Bowman is helping to make it happen.

If you're a hunter who understands that people like Richard Daley don't care what your shotgun is used for as long as they can seize it and melt it down to make a statue of a pretty flower, I urge you to join Concealed Carry, Inc., Gun Owners of America, Pink Pistols, and Jews for the Preservation of Firearm Ownership. If you're a hunter who agrees with Mr. Bowman that you're better than people who own icky assault rifles and pistols, forget it. Continue to enjoy a feeling of smug superiority. Just don't expect it to count for anything when your shotgun is confiscated by the state in a few years.

Don M. Gwinn

[Don Gwinn]

Why were we surprised? Look at this gem from the Editorial pages today in the same paper:

AFTER 14 YEARS, DALEY STILL AS STRONG AS EVER

To many readers, our endorsement of Mayor Richard M. Daley for a fifth term will play like a rerun. But rather than a rerun, we hope voters see Daley's re-election bid as they would a new chapter of a good book. That we can still wholeheartedly endorse Daley after he has spent nearly 14 years in office is testament to the mayor's ability to provide effective leadership and to his political skills.

Daley, as he puts it, has not lost the "fire in his belly" that drives him to wrestle with conditions unique to large urban cities.

And his ability to deflect his opponent's criticisms goes beyond his multimillion-dollar war chest and longevity in office.

Besides providing strong leadership that has ignited a renaissance in several neighborhoods, Daley has reached into every sector of Chicago--the North Side, South Side, West Side and even East Side--to form coalitions within the business, nonprofit, academic, community and religious sectors. Some may see this as co-opting his opposition. We see it as good government.

From the bold tear-down of dilapidated public housing to the transformation of failing public schools, Daley has demonstrated a remarkable ability to tap the most innovative thinkers in the city to tackle these and other problems.

Whether this is a function of his political heritage, intuition or just plain luck, the result has been beneficial for all Chicagoans and has kept the city on the cutting edge of urban revitalization in this country.

So successful has the mayor been in running the city and managing urban politics that there continues to be a lack of candidates qualified to challenge his vision.

Beyond firing Chicago Police Supt. Terry Hillard, Terry Peterson, head of the Chicago Housing Authority, and Arne Duncan, the CEO of Chicago Public Schools, Daley challenger the Rev. Paul D. Jakes fails to offer one thoughtful plan that outlines how those agencies could be vastly improved under his leadership. For example, Jakes' proposal to provide "more social services and job training" for CHA residents ignores the reality that these services are a major component of CHA's plan for transformation.

Likewise, his proposal that 30 percent of all new residential construction be affordable housing is impractical. Even the aldermen pushing for a 25 percent affordable housing set-aside ordinance recognize that the number will probably be a lot lower than their goal.

Jakes' proposal to "build new schools in all neighborhoods" is similarly unrealistic, given the state's current budget predicament. And the population shifts some neighborhoods have experienced make building some new schools an unwise proposition.

Unfounded is Jakes' assertion that Daley has neglected businesses and economic development in low-income neighborhoods. To the contrary, many of these neighborhoods have experienced so much reinvestment that residents are concerned about gentrification.

Another candidate, Pat McAllister, was first to announce her run against the longtime mayor, but she, too, fails to articulate a compelling realistic alternate vision for the city. The Rev. Joseph McAfee has not run a credible campaign.

As Daley recognizes, his mayoralty has unfinished business--that's why he's running for another term. We would like to see him push for police redeployment as a way to address the high incidence of crime in some neighborhoods and to support videotaping of police interrogations to protect the rights of suspects and the integrity of the police department.

His most important challenge will be to build on the tremendous work he started by taking the unprecedented step of assuming personal control--and therefore personal responsibility--over such complex issues as public education. We expect Daley to continue to be aggressive in his approach to promoting education reform, providing housing for working-class and impoverished citizens, and spreading Chicago's economic development projects throughout all of its neighborhoods.

Given the uncertainty of our times, it is more important than ever that we elect a mayor who has already proved his ability to lead.

Two other citywide offices are on the ballot but without opposition.

City Clerk James J. Laski Jr. saw his opponent disqualified, so he doesn't have to answer questions from voters about ghost payrolling in his office.

City Treasurer Judith C. Rice is an outstanding candidate.


After 14 years, Daley as strong as ever


:barf:

[CZ-75]

The Sun-Times ought to change its name to the Manure Shoveler with that editorial.

I'd just as soon cancel my subscription and get the Guardian.

[Schuey2002]

:cuss: :cuss:

This guy is going to get an ear full from me..:fire: :cuss:

[Zundfolge]

This is a simple and obvious tactic of the antis (and probably their most successful).

Divide and Conquer

[Monkeyleg]

How much would you care to bet that this "reporter" has either hunted once or never in his entire life?

[andy]

Dale Bowman is an anti posing as hunter. Anyone suggesting a ten year waiting period is no big deal is an anti. He fools no one.

[David Roberson]

My thought exactly, Monkeyleg.

However, on the off chance that this guy really is a hunter and potentially educable, I would suggest that childish name-calling e-mails are unlikely to do our cause any good.

Here's what I sent him:

"As a gun owner and a hunter, I read your column with interest, and I have to ask:

"Are you not in the slightest worried about the fact that so many anti-gun organizations also anti-hunting, and that so many anti-hunting organizations say that banning guns is a useful corollary to achieving their goal?"

It may do no good at all, but I bet it has a better chance than calling him names.

[TexasVet]

Mr. Bowman seems to have little knowledge or education on the "right" to hunt. There is no such right. The 2nd Amendment enumerates the right of the people to defend the nation against an opressive government, period.
His putting the "right to kill animals" above the right of all Americans to defend themselves and the country from tyranny and the imposition of force (by government or the common rapist or mugger) is the most arrogant and ill-informed argument for hunters that I have ever seen put in print.
He should actually read the news reports about the Australian government taking and melting his beloved shotguns and rifles from the people in the name of "common sense gun laws."
I am embarassed for him for this incredible public airing of his lack of knowledge on the entire subject of gun ownership and the rights and responsibilities that go along with that ownership.

Your in pity,
(signed)
--------------------------------------------------------------------

idiot :cuss:

[Bruce H]

Well he could stand a butt stroke to the chops with a little NEF single shot. Bet he never thought of them as an assault weapon.

[Don Gwinn]

That's what I would do, too, in a personal e-mail. But I wanted to get some impact in case they publish that one. I cc'd him, but it wasn't a letter to him.

He apparently is a hunter, since he writes an outdoor column and has an outdoors show on radio.

[BenW]

Here's my e-mail to him
--------------
You are a selfish, stupid, useless, pathetic, sold-out, uninformed, idiotic, dumb, asshat. Way to go.
Thanks -- very helpful.:rolleyes:

I think this guy doesn't need to hear from us (well, he DOES, but since we're a very mixed bunch of fiream enthusiasts, not strictly hunters, we are all "gun nuts" to him). Those of us that participate on hunting forums should spread this article around those forums. I've found, at least on the forums I visit, that the hunters there would take this guy to task as much as we are.

Ten year waiting period indeed.:fire:

[Yohan]

//Dear hunters and gun nuts,
It has come to my attention that you guys are rallying against gun control. It is understandable that you guys want your lion's share of assault rifles, but what about the animals? Would things be the same if animals could use rifles? The only thing they have to defend themselves are their hooves or possibly their horn or their teeth while you have an arsenal of deadly weapons capable of firing projectiles at speeds ranging from deadly to very deadly. In the primitive days before guns, men hunted with clubs and their arm and teeth, making the hunt worth it. However, it is so quite difficult to aim a rifle at a helpless deer and pull the trigger? I urge you guys to reconsider this ruthless and harmful tactic and go back to the primitive days. Hunting will mean much more if you were to tackle your animal and beat it to death. Guns are a cruel and unfair way to hunt down these poor helpless deer- Also, there is the case of accidentally shootings during hunts, which could be avoided if we were to go back to hunting in packs using a variety of clubs and/or canes.

Sincerely,
Dumbface

[rick458]

Is it something in the lake water?
Does he honestly not understand that his precious rifles are 15 seconds fron being banned after handguns are outlawed?:eek:

[WonderNine]

The Second Amendment was not created to support "hunting".

[Bruce H]

Don, Pravada didn't dare say anything contrary about the former Soviet leadership either. The Sun-Times is in the same boat. What is a real shame is if the news media would really do their job Daley and several of his cronies would be in jail. They have given up on investigative journalism in favor of political partonage, which makes them much more dangerous. They have become disinformation services.

[Carlos Cabeza]

Exactly what ZundFolge said, It's a disguised divide and conquer mantra that has been very effective in making the hunter believe that thier "tools" will not be targeted by additional legislation or bans. The reporter's reference to "enthusiasts" as
"gun nuts" is repulsive and repugnant and does not give credit to the thousands of men who paid with their lives to preserve and protect the valuable liberties that our freedoms afford us as Americans.

[gburner]

I write. It is one of the most intense and rewarding things I can do indoors.

In order to write, I use words.

When I was a youngster, my father gave me an old Random House dictionary. As I grew older, when my vocabulary was better developed, I made him promise to give me the famly thesaurus when he passed. It is an heirloom.

In this time of National crisis it is now imperative that serious writers separate themselves from anarchists, naysayers and the babbling rabble.

When I first began to learn about the proposed Governmental controls on speech
I felt concerned. But a thoughtful review has shown me that these controls will in no way harm my ability to express myself in writing.

Governmental permits necessary to speak in public will not affect my ability to write.

Mandatory governmental review of all original written material will not hinder me from writing.

A list of proscribed words and topics will not inhibit my freedom to write.

Expunging certain letters of the alphabet will serve as a challenge to me, rather than an impediment.

Felony jail time for use of subjunctive clauses is a small price to pay.

A one month waiting period for paper, pens, ink, pencils and typewriter ribbon will only deter the 'rabble' and 'word nuts'.

Though considered an infringement by some lunatics who seek to speak feely on any subject because of the specious
arguement that 'freedom of speech' is a
God given right, these simple and common sense restrictions will help a benevolent central government shepard thought and speech in this country into acceptable forms. :barf:

[Malone LaVeigh]

My e-mail to Mr. Bowman (for what it's worth):

Mr. Bowman:

I have recently read your editorial regarding the need to separate the needs of gun-owning hunters from the demands expressed by those who wish to own firearms for any of a number of other purposes. I was especially interested by your repeated reference to "my right to own a shotgun or rifle for hunting." I thought you might let me know where you heard about that right. As a hunter and gun owner, I have made an exhaustive search for the delineation of any such right. I find no reference to a right to own any sort of apparatus for the taking of duck or deer in our constitution. It is absent from the writings of the founders of our republic, or any of the thinkers who gave us the Enlightenment and framed the concepts our form of government is based on. I don't find it in any of the religious traditions of the East or West. The Greek and Roman philosophers are silent on it.

I'm sure you must be in possession of some important writings of which I am unaware. For surely you wouldn't assert any such right without some fundamental basis for the right. I mean, if your assertion has no precedent, it could be taken away from you at the whim of any political faction that gained power. And then where would you be? Utterly without the power to enjoy your recreational hours as you like.

Now, if there were a right to own arms because it is fundamental to being a free society, because it means we are all equal in this country and no one has the right to prevent you from defending yourself, that would also protect your precious right to shoot holes in furry critters. If the framers of the constitution had included, for instance, some sort of an amendment to guarantee us the right to, oh, maybe, "keep and bear arms," or something, it would do a lot to make us a freer society and not upset your vacation plans too much. Maybe you'd like to look into that at some point. I mean, in addition to the other information you seem to posses.

[Elmer Snerd]

http://www.webleyweb.com/tle/libe68-20000331-07.html

[rick458]

That was very well said and pre 9/11 as well
Awesome

[fallingblock]

That was a fine letter:D

[mdsteele]

I didn't read the rest of this, so I apologize if it has been done already.
This article gave him "what for"
http://www.federalobserver.com/archive.php?aid=5240

[rick458]

WOW nothing like going into the fight armed is there:D

[H&Hhunter]

I don't find it in any of the religious traditions of the East or West. The Greek and Roman philosophers are silent on it.



Not to take away from Malones letter which is masterfully written.

Chisled between two colums in the great forum in the ancient city of Timgad built by Romes Third Legion in 100 A.D.

Which is now in modern day Tunisa I belive or possibly Algeria it's near the border in any case.

"Venari lavari ludere ridere hoc est viveri"

"To hunt, To bathe, to play,-that is to live"

Hunting is an ancient and revered past time. It is an expression of freedom. It is an activity that is exclusive to free men. Tyrants, socilaists and monarchs around the world have long tried to restrict free men from hunting. To restrict a hunter from the hunt is to crush that mans spirit.

I know of very few hunters who are not gun rights advocates as well. They do exist obviously but I don't think you'll find many out west (that of course does not include California). These types along with anti gunners and anti hunters tend to be from urban areas.

What distresses me is that I've been reading ALOT of anti hunting quotes on this web site. And by which I mean quotes right out of the PETA play book. Non of the people who've posted here are included as of yet.

You can not be a radical animal rights person and be pro freedom. that's like saying your a National Socialst and pro freedom. the two cannot by definition co-exist. It P.O's me to no end when I see pro gun guys who are anti- hunting should be illegal. I find that to be some kind of cheap self P.C. gratification. "I believe in guns but I'm better than your average redneck gun wacko because I don't believe we should kill animals". Sorry guys but that just doesn't fly with me. And the same visa versa.

In my mind Hunting and RKBA are intricately intertwined wether or not hunting is a constutional amendment. That is coverd in my mind when we were granted the right to liberty and the pursuit happiness.

I guess I should add that I am also an NRA life member as well as a member of the RMEF the SCI and the American Association of Professional Hunting Consultants. I take my gun rights real serious. I take my hunting rights just as serious.

Hunters are by far and away the largest population of shooters in America. It sounds like many of need some education.....

But the challenge still stands to you anti Hunters on this board. I want you to explain and defend your opinons.

And once again let me explain something. there are two types of hunters in this world. Period.

1. A substinace. A person who must hunt to live. There are very few of these people left in the world. Some African tribes some remote groups of Inuit in Greenland and extreme Northern Canada and i'm sure others that i am omitting.

2. People who hunt because they want to. Even if they claim to do it only for food they have the choice to not hunt. These people are Sport hunters because they have a choice to not hunt yet choose to do so. AKA every hunter who has the ability to post on this board!!!

So don't give me the old "I'm moraley superior to sport hunters because I only hunt for food B.S."

That is precisiely like some hunter saying I don't believe that anybody should own guns unless it's for hunting. Either you believe in the RKBA or not there is no middle ground.

Either you support hunting or not just the same.

[H&Hhunter]

The above post was supposed to be on the Legal and political page and posted to the Animal Rights/Anti hunter thread. Can somebody please help me put it there as it is totally out of place here.

H&Hhunter (Computer illiterate and fat fingered)

[iamkris]

Here's my email to him:

From: xxx@att.net Save Address

To: outdoordb@aol.com
Subject: Are you really serious about your article in the Sun Times
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 23:46:12 +0000 [View Source]



I read a copy of your article in the Sun Times on your support for Daley's
gun legislation and how it "in no way affects my right to own a shotgun or
rifle for hunting" Hunters need to separate themselves from gun nuts,
February 16, 2003 BY DALE BOWMAN STAFF REPORTER

At first I was aghast...then I thought "surely he wrote this as parody"...now
I'm not sure.

Do you really believe this?

Are you really so narrow in your thought that you think this is a sensible
proposal. Let me, if you will, "fisk" your article

* "Military style" weapons -- what do you consider "military"? Black guns?
Hmmm, that looks like a Remington 700 ADL All Weather. Semi-autos? Hmmm,
there goes your Browning BAR. Pistol grips? Bennelli shotguns. M16s? You
don't think Camp Perry rifle competition is a legitimate sport?

* Ban handguns -- do you not think handguns are a legitimate hunting tool?
How about for handgun competition? How about for a single mother to defend
her family in the crappy neighborhood she's forced to live in?

* Gun fingerprinting -- I can't believe you haven't done even cursory
investigation into the fallacy that is gun fingerprinting. Please read this
simple explanation...http://www.gunfacts.info/

* Increase the cost of a FOID card -- how about we increase the cost of the
resident hunting license while we're at it to? Say to about $2000 per year?
Does that sound appealing? No? Well, better watch for it when some nanny
group "I know what's good for you" decides that hunting isn't PC anymore but
can't get hunting bans enacted.

* Background checks -- apparently you don't understand the law. Checks are
required for anyone buying a gun from a dealer. Otherwise it's just like any
other face-to-face private sale.

Frankly, your attitude appalls me. The attitude that "my sport is legitimate
but his over there isn't" is elitist and isn't cognizent of the reality of
the motivations behind the gun grabbers. "Surely we must all hang together,
or we will all hang separately"...your article, sir, has just created the
first loop in the noose that will eventually tighten on your own neck.

[pax]

H&H Hunter,

Just copy & paste your message into a new reply screen on the thread you meant to post on.

Everyone else,

The article ran almost a year ago -- so an email barrage is not necessary.

Closed to prevent confusion.

pax