[2dogs]

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 Advertisement




"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.

[goosegunner]

*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.

In Norway "military-stayle" rifles are illegal (for hunting), so Garands, M1 carbines, Ruger mini14 etc. is illegal

[Art Eatman]

The column once agains raises an age-old question: How did somebody with so little intellectual competency ever learn to read and write?

There is not one point raised in the article that hasn't refuted dozens and dozens of times at TFL and here at THR.

I've been "messin'" with guns for over 60 years. Shooting at targets, shooting at critters, handloading, gunsmithing and all that. Learned how to be danged good with a self-defense pistol, as well as plinkers.

I'm s'posed to cut myself into segments, just to please some doofus that's plumb eat up with the terminal dumb-(bleep)?

Not in this lifetime, and I ain't quittin' early on his account...

:D, Art

[TallPine]

Dear Mr Bowman:

Do the terms "England", "Australia", and "Canada" mean anything to you ....?

[mjustice]

This guy *is* a nut, and represents everything that is wrong with the gun movement.

If they (the government) ever mananges to ban handguns and mil-pattern rifles, who do you think they are going to go after next? Those evil "sniper rifles" that folks use on deer and those "street sweepers" used to shoot waterfowl and turkeys!

MJ

[No4Mk1]

So, mr Bowman thinks that using weapons for killing defenseless animals is in some way morally superior to training with weapons to defend family and country?

Before the hunters come down on me, don't get me wrong, I enjoy hunting and think nothing ill of it. I'm just trying to make the point that this guy is seriously deluded if he thinks he isn't next on the list of people they are coming to get, and if he thinks that the "anti's" regard him in any higher stead than they do a "gun nut" like me.

To them, he may not be a "gun nut", but he is a "senseless killer"....

[2dogs]

It in no way affects my right


This @$$%&##, and I do mean just that- is a self absorbed, self delusional twit. If he really is a hunter, and/or pretends to represent hunters views in anyway then they can all kiss my hairy behind.:cuss: :fire: :barf:









Edited to further disguise possible obscenity.

[4v50 Gary]

And Mr. Bowman is the conquered.

[Gmac]

What 2dogs said!

[Bartholomew Roberts]

My email:

"Actually Mr. Bowman, putting aside the argument over the efficiency of Daley's new proposals, the restrictions you mention DO affect your ability to hunt and own a rifle or shotgun in one very important way.

After you apply all of them, the number of people who are left to oppose additional, stricter gun controls that you might have a problem with will be too small to matter in a democracy.

Illinois hasn't been all that successful in opposing gun restrictions with military collectors, handgun owners, recreational shooters and hunters working together. How much more effective do you think they will be when it is simply hunters working alone? "

[gun-fucious]

Dale needs to spend some quality time with Henry...

Yep, the hunters should allow themselves to be marginalized to the right corner so the extreme gun nuts can be eviserated

after all they don't want your pump shotgun
(except for the MMM)

[Art Eatman]

Well, one never knows if one's ideas make a difference in somebody's views, but I emailed Mr. Bowman:

Dear Mr. Bowman,

I have been involved in the various squabbles about gun control since back around 1967. I can tell you from personal observations and communications that there is no difference in the eyes of the proponents of "reasonable gun control" between a gun nut, a hunter or just your garden-variety skeet-shooter or plinker.

The same people who worry about the cosmetics of those horrible weapons with black plastic also worry about those evil people who are inhumane murderers of innocent animals. You, sir, are no different in their eyes than any member of a radical militia. It's merely a case of getting around to you, later.

"We must hang together, or most assuredly we will be hanged separately." The only differences between any firearms are the ways in which they are used. The only difference among lawful users of firearms is the timing of the ever-greater restrictions upon them. "Divide and conquer" is one of the oldest ploys in military strategy; it serves well in political strategy also. It obviously has worked with you.

A recent thread at http://www.thehighroad.org gave the budgets of the various anti-hunting groups. It totals some hundred million dollars. On average, 20% goes to further fundraising and administration. That leaves a lot of money to influence legislation for both gun control and cessation of all hunting.

I don't know your age, but I suggest you lay in a good stock of videos about hunting. They will serve to remind you of what once was possible, as you look back from ten or twenty years from now.

Cordially,

Art Eatman
Terlingua, Texas

[2dogs]

Art Eatman

Art, very eloquent indeed:D

I don't think the link goes where you intended though, I could be wrong.

[.45TCB]

Repeated ad nauseum in the original article: "It in no way affects my right to own a shotgun or rifle for hunting."

So, after defeating the British in a bloody war for independence, self-rule, and individual liberties the Founding Fathers wrote the Second Amendment to protect sports equipment?

It's not about guns, Mr. Bowman . . . It's about control.

[Don Gwinn]

Gee, Art. That was good.

[JohnK]

Great response Art, and much more polite than much of the email Mr. Bowman is sure to be getting this morning.

I am a hunter who owns guns, not a gun nut.

Plain old ordinary hypocritical nut seems about right though.

[Mannlicher]

Dale Bowman's commentsare not worth commenting on, except to wonder how a man of supposed intelligence can come to this totally idiotic conclusion. What a freaking moron.

[Standing Wolf]

Leftists are moral and intellectual parasites. Some even masquerade as hunters.

[BOBE]

Is it possible that true "gun nuts" are those who oppose them?

[SaintofKillers]

Can everybody do ourselves a favor and bombbard this so called hunter with emails, I already sent mine but it was too long to print here.:cuss:

[Navy joe]

Dale Bowman meet Henry Bowman. The End.

[Airwolf]

Someone else on another board is trying to start a dialogue with the reporter:

My nice email generated a good response and a chance for more dialogue. He told me that the majority of his emails are making the "hair stand up on the back of his neck". That sucks, because there is virtually no chance for him to ever come to see our side of things now. It would have been really nice to get him to write a story about the difference between firearms collectors and the protection of our freedoms vs. the hatefilled, whack jobs that make us all look bad.

Others have reported getting back auto-like replies.

One reported that his e-mail was deleted without opening it.

Some have heard nothing at all back.

[Tamara]

He keeps babbling something about a "right to own shotguns or rifles for hunting". Try as I may, I cannot find the word "hunting" in the Bill of Rights; someone help me out, here...

[EJ]

Okay--

I don't really hunt --just some varmint and occasional "for the heck of it"
So I support the concept--
I don't like the attitude of "SOME" hunters -- like our Media man here--
I am amazed that they think this will work--

What can you say -- I guess there are idiots everywhere--

I just wish I was stupid enough to think I could be anti-hunting without being anti-gun--
I guess ignorance is maybe bliss----

:rolleyes:

[Chainsaw]

Just another anti who happens to own guns. I have met the enemy and he is us.--------Chainsaw

[Shaginator]

Well if one collected all those safety arguments from the anti's, one would be led to believe that us "gun nuts" should have all shot or imprisoned ourselves to oblivion by now.

We're still here!

And those dumb criminal punks use stolen guns. You'd figure they'd also have eliminated themselves because hadn't been certified, trained, or had passed a background check.

But they're still here, too!

Now the 'gummint's line of reasoning over past decades has been to control the latter group (murderers, punks, outlaws) by making it harder for good citizens (including gun nuts and hunters) to acquire the tools needed to guarantee their god-given right to self-protection and sport. This is also known as "infringement." Problem is, such a plan weakens the former group (good citizens) at the cost of strengthening the latter group (criminals).

And, why is it that more and more 'gummint folks are finding the need to acquire bodyguards and CCW's when so many gun control laws are on the books, designed to help guarantee the "safety" of citizens?

As for a license-to-own-a-gun idea:

The CDC has a stat for "age-adjusted" death rate per 100,000 for various causes (year 2000).

What is it for firearms? 10.4 (acts of self-defense are also counted here)
Motor Vehicle accidents? 15.7

Cars, of course, must pass rigorous safety standards, and may only be driven by licensed individuals. Compared to something that's "designed to kill," those numbers raise doubts on the effectiveness of a similar program for guns (let alone its cost).

However, as the anti's have their way, and as folks like Mr. Bowen get whittled down on compromise, more good folks will fail to even recognize a gun, and more good folks will fall victim to violent crime, to the point where it may just happen that those firearm death rates will exceed those of automobiles.

But, by that time, we will most certainly have lost our Liberty...

[DeltaElite]

I agree, I am a gun nut and I don't want to be associated with hunters. :neener:

I don't have a pick up truck, I don't wear camo to the gun show and I don't say y'all.
I want to be considered a seperate entity from hunters. ;)
I'm just kidding, just rowdy this morning yanno. :D

If hunters single themselves out, then they will be easier to eliminate in the end.
Just like the NRA, some people don't see that the 2A has nothing to do with sporting and hunting, it is about self defense.

[Shaginator]

Yup. I think someone else pointed out that RKBA is written in context of securing a free state.

Would've been in the best interest of Mr. Bowman if he had affiliated himself with the "gun nuts." On purely constitutional grounds it seems like it's easier to ban all hunting, while still maintaining that the state not infringe on our right.

Not that I'd want such a ban. I like wild venision, stuffed quail, barbequed boar, and all that stuff.

[Art Eatman]

Well, I'm primarily a hunter, insofar as use of firearms. Started out on sparrows with my Daisy Red Ryder, back around 1940. It's all my mommy's fault. Christmas present. What did she know? She was only a PhD in Psych...:D

But ya know? I sorta like the idea of being able to defend myself against most any form of Doofus-ism, whether at home or out on the street. I sorta like the idea of the citizenry at large banding together against a government gone all Kafka-esque, and saying, "No mas!"

But like my daddy used to say, "The reason people don't think is that they don't have anything to think with."

:), Art

[Henry Bowman]

This idiot is not related to me.

[EJ]

We knew that Henry---:D

[cordex]

I'm a hunter myself.
But not first or foremost.

Still, I'd half like to see a bill that would ban hunting rifles and shotguns come uncomfortably close to being passed. Maybe t'would wake durnfools such as this up.

[Ryder]

Where's the punch line? My copy of this joke is missing it's punch line! It's just not very funny without the punch line. Somebody fill me in on the punch line.

:D

[publius]

Yeah, you're safe, Mr. Bowman. The gungrabbers aren't after your style of firearm yet, and the PETA folks are going to hit the trappers and the people who run dogs first. If you're not first on the list, it means you're not on the list.

[publius]

I disagree with the thesis of your article on gun nuts and hunters. I'm a hunter, and I see hunting coming under divide and conquer attacks, where first they take on the trappers, and no one complains because few of us trap. Then they go after baiting or running dogs, and deer hunters sit quietly in their tree stands, usually near natural bait. You must have noticed this trend.

A similar one exists in the world of guns. First it's the mean looking semi's, then the Saturday Night Specials, then the 50 cal sniper rifles, which are great fun, by the way. I don't believe, as you seem to, that these people mean to stop with those guns. I think they have a problem with guns. Not just some guns. Guns. Your guns and mine.

Reading an individual mind is tricky business, and reading the minds of masses of people is virtually hopeless. Nevertheless, we have both attempted it, and we've come to opposite conclusions on that matter. I'd just ask that you consider that I could be right.

With that in mind, some comments on what you wrote...

*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.

You stated the problem. I believe they'll eventually have you hunting with single shot weapons or maybe a bow. Not that there's anything wrong with that. We have archery and muzzleloader seasons because lots of people enjoy those kinds of hunting, but the point is, they want the magazine out of your Remington 700.

*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.

They're not restricting them because they can be used with one hand. They're restricting them because they are GUNS. Again, I believe it would lead to your guns. Additionally, we have a society in which the criminals are well armed. Law abiding citizens who carry concealed pistols (I am one of these) help to protect all citizens, yourself included.

*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.

Research how well this has gone in Canada. You seem susceptible to the "logistical nightmare" argument. That's what they've got. Additionally, anyone with a few minutes and a file can change the "fingerprint" of a gun, the fingerprint also changes with normal use. They'll want fingerprints from your guns. Some of us won't cooperate. The tactics they use against us will be used against you. Finally, fingerprinting requires registration, which historically has led to confiscation. Once again, that means GUN confiscation, and I think they mean you.

*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.

They won't stop there is again the argument here. Additionally, as with many other arguments on gun control, there's that pesky second amendment issue. I know it's not directly related to your hunting guns, but guns are great equalizers. When my fiance has to go to a bad part of town in the middle of the night for a press check, I'm glad she's got a Glock and knows how to use it. You can't hunt if you're dead.

*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.

If you thought it might actually accomplish anything useful, you probably wouldn't mind the logistical nightmare. It won't.

*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.

Actually, our country has a history of taxing things in order to prohibit them. Notable examples are the Federal Firearms Tax and the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937. Is there any good reason the cost shouldn't be $1,000,000? Perhaps to you and me, but not to some people.

*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.

They are already mandated for all gun dealers. The "gun show loophole" is really the individual sale loophole. Here's how it works: you can now buy your buddy's deer rifle. You can just do it. No background check. No federal tax. Nothing. Just cash one way, and a gun the other. If you happen to see your buddy walking around the gun show trying to peddle his rifle, you can do it at the show. Or, you could just do it in your living room.

Here's the scary part. Your buddy could sell that gun to a complete stranger at the gun show with no background check. To ban that, they'll have to define what a gun show is. I believe they'll define it to be whenever two or more people gather to trade in guns. They'll make it illegal for you to buy your buddy's deer rifle in your living room without performing a background check.

Another related point....gun shows are great places to find new products, and to find bargains on ones you use all the time. You seem indifferent to the idea of lopping off large parts of the American gun market. A smaller market offers fewer choices for you, and they'll be more expensive choices.

*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.

Again, you believe they'll leave you and all of your descendants alone. I don't.

*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.

Let's hope your grandson doesn't end up keeping your old guns in a secret compartment.

Regards,

publius

[Drizzt]

'Nuts' or not, e-mailers are sticking to their guns

February 19, 2003

The first salvo will come from John Farmer , a friend from Crete:

"I by no means am a gun nut, although I do own more than 20, three of which are handguns. You failed to mention in your anti-gun, 'under the guise of I am for hunting guns' article, that Illinois has a handgun hunting season. I do participate in this opportunity, successfully I might add, with a .44 magnum and by no means consider myself a 'nut.' Hunting nut ... guilty as charged. I also own a Browning Challenger .22 auto pistol that I squirrel and rabbit hunt with.

"I do not see any use for assault weapons either, but I do have a couple prize-possession Browning auto loaders, 30-06 and 7mm magnum, that would be outlawed should some of the anti-gun [Democratic] bills be passed. Specifically, the hidden clauses in the Brady Bill.

"I am a very serious hunter [108 whitetails harvested] and gun owner and am quite offended to be portrayed in a bad light. As a responsible handgun owner, I take exception.''

Farmer's was one of hundreds of responses to Sunday's column, "Hunters need to separate themselves from gun nuts.''

Most were regurgitations of National Rifle Association propaganda. Exactly the stuff that puts hunters in the lunatic fringe, where we can be marginalized and ostracized. There's a reason more than 90 percent of hunters don't belong to the NRA: It doesn't represent our views.

As Dan Grabon of Plainfield put it: "I love to pheasant hunt and am fond of shotgun hunting. But we need better gun laws in this country, and I do not feel threatened by any of those proposed 'new' laws you mentioned. I showed my fellow co-worker your article, and he was not happy. An argument followed. He is a proclaimed 'gun nut,' and I am not. And your article brought out the difference between us.''

David Chidley wrote: "First, it saddens me to see one in your position use a provocative and divisive term such as 'gun nuts.' Contrary to your insinuation, gun nuts per se are harmless. It is the nuts that own guns about whom we should all be concerned.''

A Chicagoan who goes by Ed Iphish and e-mails occasionally sent this: "The mayor doesn't know the difference between assault weapons and semiautomatic shotguns. I doubt the governor would be able to tell the difference either. Handguns have many hunting applications in addition to being personal defense weapons. Just because you have no use for one doesn't mean I don't.

"Gun fingerprinting, background checks and waiting periods are ineffective if our legal system doesn't put firearm offenders behind bars. Spend my money on building jails. The mayor and the governor can jump up and down and stomp their feet all they want ... until they put criminals in jail, any other proposed gun restrictions are political fodder.

"Your wishy-washy commentary asking us to separate ourselves from 'gun nuts' is just more fuel on the burning desire of the outdoor-ignorant to ban all firearms in the city.''

An e-mail from John Brazas of Homewood gives an answer:

"First and foremost, the NRA is not the voice of gun owners. It is the voice of gun manufacturers. For the National Rifle Association to appoint and anoint itself as the unquestionable 'Voice of All Gun Owners Everywhere' is like Phillip Morris appointing itself as the spokesmen for lung cancer.''

Terry D. Cornell Jr. of the south suburbs, who lost a family member to a gun crime, gets the final word:

"I too feel that there needs to be some type of gun control. Crime is out of hand; guns are used in most crimes. But I think the proposed legislation isn't going to work. Did prohibition work? No. Do the drug laws? No. No matter how tough the laws are, does it stop the importation of illegal drugs? No. I know that I sound like a pessimist, and maybe even worse, a gun nut. But I'm not.''

Cornell disagreed with much of Mayor Daley's proposed legislation.

"I was born around guns,'' he wrote. "I got my first gun when I was 9, a .410 shotgun. [I got 'promoted.' Instead of flushing out the birds, I finally got to shoot them.] I was taught how to handle guns and respect them. I understand the deadly effects and consequences guns have when used illegally and/or improperly.

"I think that something needs to be done. I just don't have the answer. I know that it may sound like a cop-out, but it isn't. I don't think that total ban is going to help. I hope that someday this problem can be solved, as it will spare some family the grief that my family has suffered.''

http://www.suntimes.com/output/outdoors/cst-spt-out19.html

[Master Blaster]

Dear Sir:

Here is what the reasonable legislators think about your hunting arms:

Bolt action Hunting Rifle = Deadly cop killing sniper weapon that can shoot through a policeman's vest at 300 yards.

Any Shotgun = the top choice of wife killers, and crimminals since they leave no ballistic marks on the Ammo (shotgun pellets) they shoot and are untraceable to the owner.


Once ballistic fingerprinting has been accepted a total ban on ALL scatter guns will follow because they cant be fingerprinted.

[.45TCB]

Pitiful. Even the e-mails he shares which seem to disagree with his position have phrases like, "I do not see any use for assault weapons either . . ."

While I'm sure that he got quite a few e-mails that wouldn't be fit to print, even in Chicago, we've also seen several reasoned and civil replies from THR members in this thread. I guess using some of those would defeat his purpose.

How sad that a man who thinks he has a Constitutional "right to hunt", can dismiss the true meaning of the Second Amendment as "NRA propaganda".

[Monkeyleg]

At an NRA grassroots election seminar last year, one of the NRA/ILA reps said the organization believes that hunting is under a greater threat than guns themselves. Apparently they think PETA is making more progress than Sarah and her ilk.

When legislation is proposed that will restrict hunting, it's going to take a lot of effort on my part to overcome inertia and call my legislators. Far too many hunters have left us swinging in the wind. I'll make the calls, but I'll hold my nose while doing so.

[MountainPeak]

I sent the writer a polite e-mail several days ago after reading his article off of another forum. I was polite, even though SOME hunters, and their, what do you need THAT kind of gun with THAT many rounds attitude are a major pain?!!! By the way, I'm a 2nd Amendment supporter(Gun Nut) that happens to hunt as a sideline to the REAL issue. Art, very good letter.

[Coltdriver]

Unfortunately I am both a Gun Nut and a Hunter.

I simply refuse to seperate my self to placate some liberal coward who thinks he can legislate away my God given rights.

Those who wish to always be able to hunt better join up with us gun nuts who will defend our right not to be infringed.

People like the author of that article can only be pitied:D

[QKRTHNU]

I just sent my response. Here it is:
Mr. Bowman:

Your article can be summed up in the following line.
"That in no way affects my right to own a shotgun or rifle for hunting."

It's a shame that you have such a selfish view when it comes to individual liberties.
I'm angered that you feel this country is all about YOUR rights, but not mine.

I will offer you some warning. That kind of thinking WILL come back to bite you.
If you value YOUR freedoms, YOUR liberties then you must be willing to defend the
freedoms and liberties of others. If you don't it places YOUR freedoms, YOUR liberties
one step closer to being taken away as well. There are plenty of people who don't own guns
let alone hunt who don't give a rats behind about YOUR "right to own a shotgun or rifle for
hunting."

[CZ-75]

I've been following this for several days, but have yet to bother propounding my views for Mr. Bowen. I may as well go hit myself in the head with a hammer.

While we all like to believe that we will offer something convincing to him, I'm certain that his mind is made up. Even the e-mails criticizing him are selected so that they disagree, yet not completely and share a few views with him, such as not needing assault rifles. These are intended to show that a common ground exists between him and other hunters and gun owners, who will eventually come around to the right way of thinking.

With "hunters" like him, I'd rather be a "gun nut."

All in all, another shabby piece of yellow journalism that would even embarrass PRAVDA.

[2dogs]

http://www.federalobserver.com/archive.php?aid=5240

Terry: 'Gun Nuts' Need to Separate Themselves from Zealots
By Mark & Tina Terry for The Federal Observer


'NUFF SAID!
Dear Mr. Bowman,

We read your piece entitled Hunters need to separate themselves from gun nuts (also below) and were moved to respond to you.

Although you stoutly claim to be a hunter, after reading your insane, anti-Second Amendment piece, we sincerely doubt that you are any kind of gun owner or hunter, since you clearly don't understand the mechanical differences between "hunting weapons" like a Remington model 1100 shotgun or Model 7400 hunting rifle, or a Browning Automatic Rifle such as the BAR Classic or Lightweight Stalker - and the ubiquitous "semi-automatic assault weapon." Guess what: there isn't any mechanical difference.

And you obviously don't understand the difference between a "sniper rifle" and a bolt-action hunting rifle. Once again, there isn't any. (Or, in the alternative if you really DO understand that there's no difference, your anti-gun posturing becomes that much more diaphanous, not to mention resoundingly hypocritical.)

Aside from the clear wording of the Second Amendment, which says nothing whatsoever about hunting, but which does reference "the security of a free state," you obviously haven't grasped that guns of all kinds - including the handguns you would like Big Brother to ban - help stop literally millions of crimes per year in the United States.

And please don't pull that revisionist-history Newspeak garbage about the "militia" in the Second referring to the National Guard; for one thing, the National Guard wasn't created until the early 1900s, and is now under the jurisdiction of the federal government. For another, the Founding Fathers, who actually WROTE and approved the wording of the Second Amendment, were clear in their writings about the "militia" being all of the people, and the reason for an armed populace was to protect individual rights and freedoms - not merely to go hunting animals. Besides, if you are between the ages of 18 and 44, you are a member of the federal "militia" as that word is defined in 10 U.S.C. § 311. This means that, in reality, you should have at your disposal a "well regulated" military-pattern rifle, in a caliber currently utilized by your government's active armed forces.

Since you've obviously been living under a rock as far as the history and origin of the Bill of Rights is concerned, here are a few quotes that you might take to heart from men who founded this country, and who understood that: "No kingdom can be secured otherwise than by arming the people. The possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave." (Political Disquisitions, a British republican tract of 1774-1775.) You'll notice that conspicuously absent from all of these quotes is any reference to "hunting," or to "hunting weapons."


"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government." - George Washington

"The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good." - George Washington

"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." - Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government" - Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334.

"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves ... and include all men capable of bearing arms." - Senator Richard Henry Lee, 1788, on "militia" in the 2nd Amendment.

"Are we at last brought to such a humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in our own possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the 'real' object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?" - Patrick Henry, speech of June 9 1788.

"To disarm the people... was the best and most effectual way to enslave them." - George Mason, speech of June 14, 1788.

"The great object is, that every man be armed. [...] Every one who is able may have a gun." - Patrick Henry, speech of June 14 1788.

"Such are a well regulated militia, composed of the freeholders, citizen and husbandman, who take up arms to preserve their property, as individuals, and their rights as freemen." - "M.T. Cicero", in a newspaper letter of 1788 touching the "militia" referred to in the Second Amendment to the Constitution.

"That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United states who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms..." - Samuel Adams, in Phila. Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789.

"The danger (where there is any) from armed citizens, is only to the 'government', not to 'society'; and as long as they have nothing to revenge in the government (which they cannot have while it is in their own hands) there are many advantages in their being accustomed to the use of arms, and no possible disadvantage." - Joel Barlow, Advice to the Privileged Orders, 1792-93

"[The disarming of citizens] has a double effect, it palsies the hand and brutalizes the mind: a habitual disuse of physical forces totally destroys the moral [force]; and men lose at once the power of protecting themselves, and of discerning the cause of their oppression." - Joel Barlow, Advice to the Privileged Orders, 1792-93.

As far as your supporting the banning of all handguns goes, it is clear you have more sympathy for a rapist, murderer or other violent criminal than you have for a woman, an elderly or disabled person or any other victim or potential victim who depends upon a reliable handgun to protect him or herself against being harmed or killed. But, since you're a hunter, why should you care about crime victims being able to protect themselves against violent armed criminals? You're not one of those "gun-nuts" who simply prefers not to be raped, robbed or murdered, and who therefore owns a handgun to try to prevent such crimes.

And if some woman happens to have her handgun that she purchased within one month stolen, lost or damaged, and she wants to purchase another handgun within the same month to protect herself, well, what the hell do you care? She should just have be forced by law to wait to obtain another handgun till next month, no matter how much danger she's in - after all, that doesn't affect your situation as a hunter, does it?

And since the police have no compelled legal duty to protect her, even if she is disarmed by law and frantically calls 911 because she's being attacked, and a handgun might have saved her... well, that's not your problem, since your stated position is: "For my money, you could ban handguns completely. That in no way affects my right to own a shotgun or rifle for hunting."

Yes, you're the mighty hunter, and above all that self-defense "gun-nut" messiness, aren't you?

Our sister - who, incidentally, is not a hunter - was once stalked in New Mexico. When she approached the police for protection, they told her to buy and carry a handgun, which she did. But according to you, she shouldn't have done that - by doing so, she was a "gun nut," and the government should have legally banned her from having a handgun for protection.

So any woman who wants to purchase a handgun to protect herself from a stalker? Or a woman who has been raped or assaulted, and who now wants to carry in order to protect herself from further attack? Screw them - according to you, they can wait up to 10 years to buy one - they're not hunters, so such restrictions don't affect you.

You apparently share the position of the "gun-controllers" who believe that a disarmed raped and/or murdered woman is somehow morally superior to a rapist/murderer with a bullet in him.

We lived in Southern California during the Rodney King riots. Overnight, many people in hoity-toity Beverly Hills, who had formerly disdained guns and those "gun-nuts" you keep putting down, but whose neighborhoods were now being threatened by armed gangs and rioters, all of a sudden were storming gun-stores to try to arm themselves... only to be told that the California 15-day waiting period prevented them from obtaining any firepower protection.

Some of these folks actually contacted Beverly Hills resident Charlton Heston and begged him to provide them with guns so as to circumvent the legal waiting period. None of these folks was a hunter - but they wanted guns to protect themselves because the police couldn't do so, and even admitted they couldn't.

According to you, the government should have prevented all these homeowners from doing anything other than hunting with a long-gun by law, no matter what happened to them.

We guess your support of up to a 10-year (or longer) waiting period for anything other than a hunting weapon should be mandated for just such cases as this. Your position is obviously enthusiastically shared by the lawless, armed gangs who were committing home invasions on unarmed homes in Beverly Hills and LA, and who are still doing so in many cities in the country, Phoenix, Arizona, near where we live, being just one of them - these home invaders sure don't want any non-hunter "gun nuts" protecting themselves and their homes, especially with "evil" handguns.

Your frantic effort to distance yourself from any gun-owners who are not hunters, whom you term "gun-nuts," makes us think that perhaps you are actually one those TRUE "gun-nuts" - namely those hysterics who abhor all guns, and who ascribe some sort of supernatural voodoo-type power to inanimate pieces of steel in the shape of firearms. Most of these irrational "gun-nuts" don't really comprehend that a revolver or a pistol, or a civilian copy of a military-pattern rifle or a pistol, cannot spontaneously animate itself. Likewise, these inanimate tools possess no super mind-control power that relentlessly brainwashes any human being near them into blindly picking them up and irrationally killing any- and everyone in sight.

What other inanimate objects do you suppose humans should ban in the spirit of keeping everyone safe? Just the items that you have no use for? Did it ever occur to you that, if all handguns could be magically banned - enterprising criminals could - and would - just saw off the barrels of the hunting shotguns and rifles that you hold so dear? How long then would it then take for some other moron to call for banning all shotguns and rifles? After all, they can be made quite portable...just like handguns are. So it's obvious your precious shotguns and rifles can be easily modified to hold the same sort of sinister magical powers as do those dastardly "devil's" tools-the evil handguns.

We have to believe that you are completely ignorant about what has happened in Britain, which has not only banned all handguns, as you long for the American government to do, but has now banned all hunting weapons. Armed crime has skyrocketed there, as it has also in Australia, which also banned guns.

Please read the following for supportive commentary and statistics:


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1741336.stm

http://www.stats.org/statswork/britgun.htm

http://www.lewrockwell.com/callahan/callahan96.html

Some questions for you, since you claim to be such an expert:



How many "semi-automatic assault weapons" were used in crimes last year? (The yearly average is less than a tenth of a percent.)


How many handguns were used specifically for hunting and/or carried as a sidearm by hunters during the various hunting seasons last year? (Many.)


How many handguns, on the average, are used yearly in the U.S. by potential victims to prevent crimes? (Somewhere between a million to over 2 million.)


Have you ever heard of highpower rifle competitions? Do you know what types of rifles are used in those competitions? (The most popular are semi-automatic military-pattern rifles.)


Why do you think owning guns has anything whatsoever to do with your "right to hunt?" (In case you hadn't noticed, there are far many more gun owners in the U.S. than there are hunters.)

Because of your strong feelings against all gun-owners except hunters, we recommend that you consider moving to a gun-free Utopia like Australia, the U.K. or perhaps Rwanda. We're pretty sure that we can easily find enough real Americans - who understand the limitations the Constitution sets forth on government - to provide the funding to pay for your move within 24 hours of your agreeing to leave.

Finally, from Mark: I had a brother killed by a hit-and-run drunk driver who was driving close to 80 miles an hour down a one-way street. My brother was, at the time of his violent death, a pedestrian. But wait - by your reasoning, it couldn't have been the drunken-driving, automobile-wielding criminal's fault. Gosh, if only some do-gooder like you had started the ball rolling to ban automobiles and alcoholic beverages, my brother might still be alive. I now understand - it wasn't the fault of the drunk - it was the availability of cars, car keys and booze! More inanimate objects to blame! Or perhaps we should just ban autos that can travel over 30 or so miles per hour, since the driver who hit my brother was doing about 80... And, of course, in the interest of safety, we must ban those dastardly beverages. Then let's not forget swimming pools, which we obviously need to ban, since they kill more than children than guns kill every year in America. After all... if it just saves one life...

And from Tina: I have already survived living in a country in which the government banned all guns overnight. Read my story at: http://www.jpfo.org/jamaica.htm to understand the horror of this experience, and why I consider Americans like you, who natter ignorantly about the Second Amendment being solely about protecting hunting, to be nothing more than "useful idiots" for total gun-banners. Certainly you are in good company with tyrants and murderers in your various stated positions concerning the registration and restriction of anything but "sporting usage" guns; the Nazis also defined "sporting usage" as a reason for some few special folks to keep their guns in Germany - they also mandated the registration of all guns, and then, when they wanted the government to control and eliminate the "undesirables," they simply used those registration lists to pick up the guns, and then banned the ownership of all guns except by the ruling party members.

Government-disarmed people are SO easy to round up, imprison, enslave and kill - just study Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot - men who promoted all of your anti-freedom draconian gun policies, and who vilified those citizens who wanted to remain armed, just as you vilify as "gun nuts" those of us who know that the Second Amendment has nothing to do with your precious hunting rights and hunting rifles and shotguns.


"Every Communist must grasp the truth: 'Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun." - Mao Tse-tung, 1938


"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered Eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so." - Adolph Hitler, April 11, 1942

You'll notice that Mao and Hitler, the murderers of millions, don't exhort their followers to grasp any "truth" about mere "hunting power" growing out of a gun-barrel, nor do they harbor any illusions about the "foolish mistake" of permitting "subject races" to "carry arms."

These canny despots obviously understood the essence of the Second Amendment far better than you do. They clearly knew that "(t)he possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave."


cont'd in next post

[2dogs]

cont'd from last post.


Since you're so obviously so hopelessly paranoid about anyone who either has a handgun or who isn't trying to ban all guns except your specific style of hunting weapons, we highly recommend that you call you doctor and ask him or her to up your dosage of tranquilizers. As you probably know, Sigmund Freud - the father of psychoanalysis - wrote in General Introduction to Psychoanalysis, that "a fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity." Thus we hope that whatever medical treatment you are (or should be) receiving is successful. It certainly is perplexing that a purported hunter - who claims to own and use shotguns and rifles - would suffer from such severe Hoplophobia.

And do check yourself back into the safety of your rubber room. How else can you possibly remain safe until all handguns are banned, and all guns are registered with your beloved Big Bro? And while you're hiding safely in your rubber room, here's something to think about: Who is the real nut - the one who ignores history and who quotes songs about handguns being the "devil's right hand"... or a law-abiding gun owner who reads and understands the Bill of Rights, who owns and uses guns, including handguns, rifles and shotguns responsibly - and who doesn't believe that guns somehow possess any malignant supernatural powers?

We're also surprised that you didn't choose that racist Lynyrd Skynyrd tune, "Saturday Night Special." We guess that it never occurred to you that your obvious position that only expensive over-and-under or side-by-side, double-barreled shotguns should be allowed by the government to be owned by civilians.


GUN NUTS?
It probably never occurred to you that most people cannot afford a Weatherby Athena or a Ruger Red or Gold Label shotgun. And those doubles are considered to be in the "affordable" range. Certainly many Black single women - who often don't live in the safest of neighborhoods, and who must often employ low-cost handguns as their only means of self- protection - aren't likely to use an expensive double shotgun as their means of self-defense.

But then, as you know, hunting is typically an occupation that is pursued primarily by White males. Thus your position, as well as being racist, is misogynistic. (Yes, we're aware that some women DO hunt, and we personally know some who do - they are, however, in the minority of hunters in general. And, significantly, ALL the women hunters we know also own and carry handguns.)

Your narrow position thus ultimately mirrors the first anti-gun laws in this country - laws that were imposed for the sole purpose of prohibiting former slaves from owning guns. These laws were written and enforced by rich and bigoted White men - who arbitrarily decided that only certain, expensive guns - guns priced far out of the financial reach of newly-freed slaves - could be owned in certain Southern states. This effectively disarmed Black men and women - the same thing that you would do. (Seems the apple of that Southern band Lynyrd Skynyrd doesn't fall far from the tree. Do you suppose that Steve Earle is also a Southern "gentleman"?)

Then there's your position that, of course vegetarian women have absolutely no "right" under your twisted test to own a gun - since the likelihood of their ever hunting is essentially, nil. We personally know some vegetarian women who own handguns - we'll let them know that, because they don't eat meat, according to you they have no right to self-defense.

Trying to follow the line of your bizarre reasoning:



Perhaps you believe that affordable semi-auto and pump shotguns are O.K to own as long as they "look different" from military pattern weapons of the same mechanical function - all logic be damned. And then, perhaps semi-automatic rifles that you consider to be hunting rifles - as long as they look a certain way - can still be owned by well-to-do White men.

In our opinion, Mr. Bowman, you have established yourself as the following:



A racist misogynist of retarded sexual and emotional maturity, who possesses an unnatural and irrational fear of certain weapons, who fantasizes that some guns somehow possess demonic and/or supernatural powers, who holds that certain White men are the only ones who should enjoy the "privilege" of owning only certain, expensive, approved-by-you, rifles and shotguns, and who shrilly parrots the politically correct anti-disarmament message of a long and infamous line of genocidal mass-murderers.

And you believe that people who who object to your position are "gun nuts?"

Sheeesh.

Mark and Tina Terry
February 19, 2003

[QKRTHNU]

HotDa*n!

Great post 2Dogs!!
:D :D :D :D :D :D :D

[Zander]

Now THAT is a rant!

Excellent stream of thought...

[Silver Bullet]

I think this guy's divide and conquer strategy is insultingly obvious. He wants to drive a wedge in the ranks of gun-owners and con the hunters into voting anti-combat gun, hoping the hunters don't realize that in doing that they will be the only gun-owners left ... and become the hunted.

[RobW]

Lots of good reasoning. But... logic will NEVER sink into a tyrants brain. What he is stating is nothing else than tyranny: I do what I want, you do what I tell you!

Too bad, this type of "people" never die out. He should go huntin' with Saddam. :barf: :barf:

[publius]

...in the category of "book length rant" goes to....<drumroll>
2dogs!!!

I note with amusement the inclusion of a quotation from Alexander Hamilton, which is more often misquoted than quoted, and which never appears in full context.

Here is what Hamilton actually said in Federalist Number 29 (http://lcweb2.loc.gov/const/fed/fed_29.html):

The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country, to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured. Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year.

[CaesarI]

I began life as an anti. Guns were X times more likely to be used against my family members than a criminal I thought. I believed it, cause my teachers told me so.

Animals are kind creatures, why would you hunt them? Most of'em can't fight back. Hunting is no different than murder. I believed it, cause my teachers told me so.

Then one day I got into a fight. I didn't start it, but I won it, despite being outnumbered. I got in trouble. They said we should share the blame. We were equally wrong. The victim, and the bully are equally wrong. I didn't believe it. Nothing they'd told me before indicated that this was so. The rich people are bullies, the bully poor victims. It is right and proper for them to revolt, and take the property that they have been denied. How can it not be right for me to defend myself? So I stopped believing them.

I started to question what I was told, and I started to give opposing arguments more credibility. I came to find the arguments against firearms lacking, and moreover filled with lies. Lies make me angry. But I still liked animals. So guns for defense were OK, but not hunting.

Later I decided I'd have to back the hunters cause I need them in the political stuggle. It was politically expedient, I still thought a lot like I had before. Then I justified it as good training for possible conflicts. And now I see it as a whole lot of fun. If the gun nuts can defend the hunters, why won't the hunters defend the gun nuts? Is their love of hunting so precious to them that they'd sacrafice their right to defend themselves?

Then my conspiracy side kicks in. Hmm... if I were an anti (and I was), wouldn't I want to divide the RKBA movement? Maybe if I made a political promise to the hunters, that we'd NEVER take their right to hunt away if they'd just let us take away "assault weapons" and "handguns". I'd make that threat seem real. I'd hire a shill to advance the position, and sell it to the RKBA folks.

When I visited Germany I read a quote regarding the Nazi's use of this same divide and conquer. Something around the lines of, "when they came for the Jews, I said nothing, for I was not a Jew. When they came for the Catholics, I said nothing for I was not a Catholic. When they came for me, there was no one left to say anything."

Our Physics teacher likes to tell us the story of the boiled frog. Put a frog in boiling water, and he'll hop out. Put a frog in a big pot, and slowly boil it, and the frog will never leave, and will die.

They're killing us very slowly, because we don't want to believe that their final aim is complete disarmament. We should have taken a stand in 1934. We should have taken a stand in 1968. We should have taken a stand in 1994. A real stand, demand it, and don't settle for anything less. Do you know how many gun owners will argue with me about the 1994 AW Ban sunset? Do you know how few will agree? :banghead:

It's things like this that make me believe we're gonna lose this fight.

-Morgan

[CZ-75]

First they came for the Communists,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a Jew.
Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me,
and by that time there was no one
left to speak up for me.

by Rev. Martin Niemoller, 1945

[Zander]

It's things like this that make me believe we're gonna lose this fight.No we aren't. Be of good faith. :cool:

I like your progression. Since it seems that your indoctrination in the government schools hasn't stuck, to whom do you attribute your education in logic? No one ever claimed that chasing the truth would be easy, but isn't is so very satisfying?

[gun-fucious]

http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?s=&postid=129710

;)

First they came for the pistols, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a handgunner. Then they came for the AR-15s, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a black rifleman. Then they came for the bolt rifles and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a sniper. Then they came for the pump shotguns, and I didn't speak up because I was a sporting clayman. Then they came for me, and by that time there was no one left to speak up for me.

[NoBite]

Yeah, I emailed Dale. Fairly long, empassioned message with no hate or belittlement. Who knows if it will matter.

But, IMO, Dale is not a hunter. He is a paid propaganda-ist. That article was nothing more than a Straw Man argument designed to sway public opinion. Frankly, he probably doesn't even believe much or any of it. Someone assigned (paid) him to write on the topic and he did. A hired wordsmith, nothing more.

Unfortunately, should a law-abiding citizen ever be in a situation where he needed to defend himself with a gun and later be on trial for said defense, the jury will likely have been prejudiced by Dale's article and hundreds like it. This is the real danger today, not guns. I tried to point this out to Dale. But, I doubt if he cares. Just looking for the next writing assignment.

[55645]

Nobite has it exactly right. Bowman's columns were timed to coincide with a Richard Roper anti-gun column and a Sun-Times editorial in favor of the Daley/Blago gun ban legislation. There will be another burst of anti-gun columns and editorials when the legislation hits the floor. The Tribune (which is even more hysterically anti-gun than the Sun-Times) has been strangely silent. My guess is that they are holding fire 'til a vote is closer.

[sjones]

You are a very confused person.You would have fit right in with bill clinton and ted kennedy and their group of loonies.Gun control laws have never worked and never will. it is not the gun that kills someone,it is the muderous maniac that pulls the trigger.How many murders do you hear about in Switzerland,where every man is trained for combat and is required to keep a assault rifle and 1000 rounds of ammo?I hunt and shoot in the idpa with my 45 and have yet to shoot anyoneover here.When I was in the army and overseas it was a different story.The weapons you so hate are what has kept this country free for idiots like you to to spout off your bull ****. :cuss: ::fire:

[t_hendrich]

Maybe I don't understand the thread?

What is wrong with owning a Semi-Automatic Assault Rifle? Why would I be labeled a "Gun Nut" if I had one? (I don't have one, but I want to have one.)

How will any of the items that you propose, work? What precedent do we have for the ideas that have been outlined? England, Canada, Australia?

Since when did the 2nd Amendment differentiate between an acceptable firearm and an unacceptable one.

How effectively have the Authorities enforced the laws and regulations that are on the books? Would we even discuss your ideas if the Authorities had a good track-record of enforcing these existing gun laws?

How does a gun law teach common sense? How does a gun law prevent a criminal from securing "black-market" arms?

Do guns commit crimes? Do guns pull their own triggers?

Why am I labeled a "Gun Nut", as if being a "Gun Nut" is akin to possessing leprosy?

I enjoy firearms. I do not support ANY EFFORT TO FURTHER RESTRICT THIS PRECIOUS RIGHT!

Can you imagine a country where we were not allowed to own firearms? I work with many individuals from other countries, such as India. Where they come from, no one may own firearms. I am proud that not only may I own a firearm, but it is a constitutionally guaranteed right.

Once again, how will these ideas work? England and the other "Anti" countries are the template for the U.S. Anti-Gun movement.

In sum, I emphatically reject your "Hunters need to separate themselves from gun nuts" thread. When they have taken all of the weapons except for the Hunting Rifle, and they come to your front door to confiscate YOUR HUNTING RIFLE, you may just wish you had been and/or sided with the American "Gun Nut".

Those are my thoughts.

Tom

[JoeSF]

As someone said I think it may have been Anne Coulter, the second amendment is about the right to bear arms, it is not the hunting and sport shooting amendment.