Anti-hunting gun owners

Status
Not open for further replies.
This talk is starting to make me hungry...

How is the hunting up in central KS? I will be up that way this fall on my way to warmer climes...
 
I'd like to invite you to hunt with me, if you're not too lazy and willing to expend the effort, we'll go where the snow is often deep during the deer season, north. We'll have to have the proper equipment and clothing or we may die.These will make us stand out prominently and will be orange. Our quarry will be wearing what nature provided which will render him or her practically invisible and they will wield senses more sensitive than you can imagine. I once heard the notion of escaping their attention as "you being oblivious to a two hundred pound deer hiding in your living room". If you wish we can use a camera but that would be lazy, leaving the work of harvesting our quarry out of the picture.
Let's say we use a scoped rifle, 270Win, enough to be effective, first shot if at all possible. I've accomplished that more often than not. That is my goal, on several levels, it pleases me. My ego likes the concept that I practiced enough to still my freezing numb hands to make a shot, that I can sublimate my "buck fever" to hold for the right sight picture and "right prey", to know what I might hit if I miss or go through the target. Then we can address the meat quality unspoiled by the huge adrenelin rush that a wounding shot elicits.
We will have to drag the harvest to the road (vehicle) could be miles. That would be after we've field dressed it. I wonder if you have the "stomach" for that? As a side note, if i'ts more than 30 degrees F the gut pile won't be here in the morning,and i'ts probably not hungry humans that claim it. When we get it home +- 500 miles, we can thaw it and butcher it, if again, you have the energy and stomach.
This is not tongue in cheek but a serious invitation to join me. I could use the help, you could use the lessons waiting there.

Heh, now if you did this wearing the coats of the animals you'd nailed previously, with boots made out of the skins, and rode your horse that 500 miles to get there, living off the land on the way, riding probably bareback, then I suspect a lesson is in there somewhere.

Outside of that, it seems like something people just do because they like to. And nothing wrong with that either...

Ain't technology great?
 
I have a problem with watching animals suffer, I can't stand it and would gladly torture any human that does unethical things to animals. That goes for breeding and training cocks or pit bulls or whatever. I've been attacked on here for saying I'd hunt hunters. All of a sudden the hunters are the ones screaming murder! When the hunters in Wisconsin were gunned down like 'varmints' by Vang I applauded it, it's about time a hunter looked down the barrel of a gun. When I see human suffering it doesn't bother me in the least, but when I say this all of a sudden I'm the one that has a problem.

So, you support torturing and murdering other people? I have a problem with this.
 
Last edited:
"...but the man who does not like to see, hunt, photograph, or otherwise outwit birds or animals is hardly normal. He is supercivilized, and I for one do not know how to deal with him." -Aldo Leopold.

That pretty well reflects my attitude toward the non hunter. And if the anti-hunting yahoos have their way and somehow ban hunting, I will hunt anyway. I am a hunter.
 
Wooderson:
If seeing a tarantula kill another species is offensive to you, then you must have a real problem with the National Geographic channel and Animal Planet. Insects and animals killing each other is what nature is about and man is just another piece of the order.
 
But I could see myself taking a deer if I was able to walk around the woods stalking an animal, but I fear sitting in a tree would bore me to death.

I don't hunt out of deer stands or blinds. I sit down against a tree or on a stump, or walk around. I guess I should say "stalk" or "still hunt" instead of walk around, but basically, I just walk. I get more than a few that way, although I am sure I would see more if I were up in a tree stand.

I don't care for blinds either, I like to hunt outside, but it's just a preference, like ice cream flavors. No value attached to doing it one way or not another.
 
I am anti sport hunting.

To me. Sport hunting is getting your kicks from death. Pretty much in the same area as snuff style porn and sadism. A person gets kicks from death of living beings. I have NO problem if a guy grabs his 308, gets his license, takes down 1-2 deer and brings them home and eats them or sells the meat. I do have a problem if someone takes a rifle. Kills 20 deer, chops the head off the biggest one and dumps the rest of carcasses in the forest to rot.
My grandfather, who was a hunter, always told me that "If you ain't gonna eat it - don't kill it." He was also one of those guys who hunts with a single shot weapon. He had an izhevsk rifle/shotgun over under combination. He used to say "If you have only one shot, you will be very careful about aiming. if a hunter knows that he has many shots in reserve, he will be sloppy, trying to get off as many shots, aiming for entire herd, crippling and wounding animals instead of killing them." I agree with him wholeheartedly.
Since I was 13, I hunted with him, using a 16ga single barrel single shot Izhevsk shotgun, old one too, with external cocking trigger. Frankly, I do not need anything more powerful to hunt. Different choke attachments, or rifled slugs or 000 buckshot is enough for just about any game. From ducks to moose. (Grandfather took a moose with a single 16ga rifled slug hit).
Frankly, we do not have enough animals left as it is. With habitat shrinkage, pollition and encroachment of human habitats. Lets stop killing them. Plenty of the animals already went extinct because of us. Yes, the animals can be HARVESTED, but with restrain and control.

And yes, I am as PRO 2nd as it gets. It is just that I preffere to kill paper plates and square pieces of paper, rather then animals.
Yes, animals kill. They kill to survive and eat. They can't go to Dominics, Jewel, Whole Foods or Farmers Market to pick up their meat. You can. Animals also do not have opposable thumbs, you do.
 
I'm a hunter (turkey, deer). I eat what I hunt. I support the privlege to hunt. I have no problems with people who don't hunt, but I have a major problem with those like the Humane Society who want to ban hunting.

I am also pro-Second Amendment as well as pro-hunting.

I'm of the mind that all of us here need to support the privlege to hunt for the same reason that hunters need to support pistol and ugly gun shooters. We all hang together, or we all hang separately.
 
I call BS on whoever said that you have to support ALL lawful uses of firearms.

I support self-defense. I support hunting to eat what you kill. I support taking care of problems with animals that are either destroying your property, livestock, crop, etc, as they're messing with your livelihood and if you messed with their livelihood they'd attack you just as quickly. I also support taking an animal if they present a significant safety problem to the community or your neighborhood.

I don't support just going into the woods and putting holes in animals that haven't done anything to you, your property, and that you don't intend to eat, then just keeping a part of them as a trophy or something. That's just unethical in my opinion.

Saying that just because it's legal, if you're pro 2A you have to support or, or else you're an anti, is about as BS as it comes.

There is a difference between legal and ethical. The classic example is the Holocaust (at least this is the example I've heard in multiple law classes when making the distinction). It was perfectly legal to exterminate the Jews (and others) in Germany under Nazi rule. It was not (in the opinion of I'd hope the majority if not all here) ethical.

The 2A has nothing to do with hunting. If we are going to make an argument against those who want to make it ONLY applicable to hunting, reminding them that this is not the original intent of the 2A, then to say that you don't support the 2A if you don't support hunting is even more ridiculous. :rolleyes:
 
Why does it always have to go to Godwin? Here we are talking about hunting and guns and we are back to Godwin.... How did he know???
 
Just curious, but do any of you opposed to trophy hunting oppose it flat out?

Let's take for example deer hunting...

Some may give the venison to friends or family who enjoy it, and one of my friends in particular gives to Pennsylvania’s “Hunters Sharing the Harvest” program, which donates venison to local food banks and soup kitchens. According to the PA Game Commission, “Each year, HSH helps provide needy Pennsylvanians with 200,000 meals of quality, high-protein venison”. Is this so bad? I believe this is an ethical option for those who enjoy hunting for trophies. They are giving back to those who need the meat the most, and who can truly appreciate a good meal.

However, to kill for the trophy and then just ditch the carcass in the woods, I am opposed to.

P.S. – You can read more about PA’s HSH program here: http://www.pgc.state.pa.us/pgc/cwp/view.asp?a=460&q=158644
 
I have been a target shooter for over 45 years now. Never a big fan of hunting, that is my personal choice though. That being said I support your hunting rights 100%.

All gun owners must stick together and link arms to block the efforts of the anti-hunting and anti-gun rights groups.
 
I do have a problem if someone takes a rifle. Kills 20 deer, chops the head off the biggest one and dumps the rest of carcasses in the forest to rot.
I don't support just going into the woods and putting holes in animals that haven't done anything to you, your property, and that you don't intend to eat, then just keeping a part of them as a trophy or something. That's just unethical in my opinion.
However, to kill for the trophy and then just ditch the carcass in the woods, I am opposed to.
I'll reiterate:

Trophy hunting is a MYTH perpetuated by anti hunters to make us all look bad. Its against the law in probably every state (its a felony here).

It's simply so rare it might as well be non-existent. The few cases I've seen over the years here in Colorado, were also connected with poaching and were prosecuted severely. I mean the guy(s) lose their vehicles, guns, get huge fines AND go to jail.

I'm surprised so many of you have bought into that myth, and are perpetuating it here.
 
I'm sort of a hybrid in this department, Leanwolf. I own several guns and shooting is about all I do these days. Not a bad way to go through life. However, I no longer hunt. That's just how things have evolved.

I hunted most of my 60+ years and loved every minute of it. In fact, I still enjoy heading to camp in late summer/early fall and help get things set up!

As with some other folks I just lost my taste for the blood sport as I got older. Would I ever join an effort to ban hunting? Not on your life! I champion hunting as vigorously now as 40 years ago. I appreciate a clean kill as much as the next guy.. just don't partake.
 
Only because there is no consensus:

Do you mean this is a myth?
Trophy hunting magazine
http://www.monstermuleys.com/th/

Buy your own trophy hunt
http://www.africanhuntingsafaris.com/

The Trophy room at King's Outdoor World
http://www.kingsoutdoorworld.com/trophy_room.htm

- Or -

If we are talking about criminal acts that people commit while hunting that represent old style trophy hunts? Than they exist also. That is why we have park police and game wardens to arrest them and give them tickets. Happens all the time. May as well say there are no shootings in DC because of the gun ban.
 
Last edited:
Did someone post that he was happy and...applauded... when a man murdered SIX hunters in wisconsin last year in cold blood -- because he doesn't approve of hunting... for ethical reasons?! That guy killed SIX PEOPLE, and he shot four of eight of them in the back, one of whom was a female nurse who was engaged to be married and shot twice in the back and killed. Her FATHER WATCHED HER DIE because of that madman and has to live with surviving the attack. The concept that this could be conveyed as something that those people deserved for being hunters is dispicable.
I remove 2 lines of text venting on this topic due to their lack of highroadness

Perhaps next we can argue that and be glad that columbine happened 'cuz those whiny kids needed to get some of their own torment given back to them' -- by being shot repeatedly while defenseless. Jeez. For the record, I've never killed an animal in my life beyond a rattlesnake and have no real motivation to hunt as long as i can get my food from a grocery store...an i'm fairly ashamed that someone might compare me to you because you also don't hunt.
 
Last edited:
You can tell by reading comments from those who are critical of hunters have little to no experience with hunting and have some really bizarre perspectives concerning what motivates people to hunt. All this stuff about liking to see stuff die, shooting prairie dogs as some kind of bloodsport(instead of the pest control that it really is), ignorance of various regional ecosystems ( having too few animals to hunt), and ignorance of laws (references to selling wild game meat, killing large numbers of animals and leaving the carcasses behind) indicate to me that these folks are city dwellers with no perspective of what things are like outside of densely populated areas. A lot of ignorance and emotion, not unlike the Million Moms.

And for the record wild duck tastes a lot better than domestically raised duck.
 
To me. Sport hunting is getting your kicks from death. Pretty much in the same area as snuff style porn and sadism. A person gets kicks from death of living beings. I have NO problem if a guy grabs his 308, gets his license, takes down 1-2 deer and brings them home and eats them or sells the meat. I do have a problem if someone takes a rifle. Kills 20 deer, chops the head off the biggest one and dumps the rest of carcasses in the forest to rot.

Listen closely...

You are perpetuating a lie. A myth. You are talking about something that is not applicable today due to the law:

Wasting deer meat in the fashion you describe is illegal in every state I know of and has been for generations. The instances of this type of thing today are rare, very rare and is a crime. A crime perpetrated by game thieves, criminal wastes of skin, not hunters. Hunters hate this type of person more than you do!

What you just said is exactly like the guy who says...

"To me people who want assault weapons and hand guns get their kicks from acting like tough guy Rambos and playing with machine guns. I don't mind hunters having guns for legitimate hunting purposes but these terrorists and their assault weapons need to go."
 
You can tell by reading comments from those who are critical of hunters have little to no experience with hunting and have some really bizarre perspectives concerning what motivates people to hunt.

They are Bizzaro World incarnations of the old Zumbo.
 
Moderator Note -- PLEASE READ

Folks,

Please stop with the name-calling, or the thread will be closed.

If you have done any name-calling, please edit your post and delete the insults. They do not belong on THR.

At least one person who has posted in this thread is already in danger of losing his THR membership. Don't let it be you.

pax
 
As a psychologist, there is good evidence that built into us are factors that make killing pleasurable. This from an evolutionary point of view promoted the risk taking needed for primate survival and weapons use - which led to the development of many of our capacities.

There are some forms of hunting that I don't regard as particular noteworthy. Canned hunts on semi-domesticated animals that are set up for the 'great' hunter to shoot - nah.

I have hunted and wouldn't ban it. Various forms have different aethestic values to me. However, hunting is irrelevant to the RKBA.
 
Hunting & RKBA

However, hunting is irrelevant to the RKBA.

No.

Not irrelevant.

Not enumerated, but neither is it irrelevant.

Anything that makes a gun useful is relevant in expressing why gun ownership is a good idea.

Self defense is relevant.

Defense against tyranny is relevant.

Community defense and national defense are relevant.

Protection of livestock is relevant.

Procurement of provisions is relevant.

Even purely recreational use is relevant.

The aspect that triggered the Second Amendment was defense against tyranny, followed closely by community/national defense and personal defense.

That doesn't make the other uses and purposes irrelevant.

Just as (per the Ninth Amendment) the lack of enumeration of a right doesn't mean the right doesn't exist.

All legitimate uses of a gun are relevant.

Including the ones I overlooked.
 
I do have a problem if someone takes a rifle. Kills 20 deer, chops the head off the biggest one and dumps the rest of carcasses in the forest to rot.

Uhmm, that is poaching, not sport hunting, and what you describe is a violation in every state. If you can't tell the difference between the sport hunting and poaching, I don't know how you can form valid opinions.
"If you have only one shot, you will be very careful about aiming. if a hunter knows that he has many shots in reserve, he will be sloppy, trying to get off as many shots, aiming for entire herd, crippling and wounding animals instead of killing them." I agree with him wholeheartedly
.

Not true. The human always controls the gun and the ammunition, not the other way around.

If you really believe this, then you would lobby for only single shot firearms for self defense, since a single shot is enough for one mugger, rapist, or home intruder, but having access to more than one bullet will certainly make you a serial killer or force you to go on a shooting spree.

How can you hit your paper and steel targets, if you have more than one cartridge in your gun, which would make you fire as fast as you can without aiming?
 
Wasting deer meat in the fashion you describe is illegal in every state I know of and has been for generations.

As noted, however, the existence of a law does not create reality, just as 'gun-free zones' don't become places of safety and virtue.

Nor do people follow this law out of the goodness of their hearts - if it was all about proper herd management, conservation, and eating what you kill, we would need neither the laws referenced nor enforcers of them, would we?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top