For Hunters who Don't Believe They're on the "List"

Status
Not open for further replies.
Anyone who did not hear Sen Kennedy state his desire to ban the .30-30 has no one but themselves to blame. With his statement the cat was out of the bag and everyone should be lacing their gloves on tight (after taping their hands tightly first).

We're in for the ride of our lives should VPC/Brady get superior positioning in the upcoming Congress.

Parhaps in aa activist move, we should all be writing letters to our congresscritters who are not running for re-election this fall clarifying our positions in an effort to seek alignment with theirs.

Not to mention actively assisting new candidates to believe as do we on both sides of the aisle.

Having said that, perhaps my post belongs more in the Activism Forum.

Sheriff, perhaps you could do a cut n paste of the pertinant words in Thirdpower's blog post?
 
I am always perplexed about which forum to post some of this stuff.
So much of it would fit in several forums, and it becomes a very subjective interpretation.

Be glad to post it in other forums, gimme the link, or go ahead and post it yourself if you would like.
thanks.
 
this is idiotic

all this stuff with the awb, nfa and everything is pretty much like saying we dont want to take ur guns just the ones that can kill some one


im tired of this

first they say we wont take ur hunting rifles now this? ***
 
The only difference between a hunting rifle and a sniper rifle is what you're shooting at. I did notice the guano about police snipers, uh- that's precision shooters making long distance shots at "the apricot." Didn't anybody tell them the average police sni- uh precision shot averages 70-75 yards? Yup, yer varmint rifle is a sniper rifle: flat shooting and accurate.
In Viet Nam, when the U.S. military woke up and realized the value of actually hitting the enemy with one well-placed shot (average shots per casualty was 250,000) they equipped their "new" snipers (seems like they always forget about the value of precision shooting during peacetime) with Remington 700 Sporters from the PX. Your Grand-dad's Bubba-Sporterized scoped '03 is a sniper weapon. Gee- does that mean the U.S. Govt should be responsible under strict liability if it's used in a crime? :D
 
It makes sense really.
Most EBR shooters only mutilate targets. Sure, some train for some type of home invasion scenario, but the truth is that most of their rounds end up in the dirt.
But the guy who only takes the Winchester out once a year for two weeks, well at least half of the rounds he sends out there kill something.
If you were an anti what would you go after?
Shooting targets or killing living things?
 
hear Sen Kennedy state his desire to ban the .30-30
Click to expand...
If you were to press your ear to just the right headstone at the Pacific View Memorial Park Cemetery, you could just make out the "thunkety-thunkety-thunkety" of John Wayne spinning in his grave.

has no one but themselves to blame.
Click to expand...
OK, I'll blame myself now, I didn't know this one yet. When was this said?

How does Ted keep getting elected? Someone wiser than I once posted "Ted Kennedy's car kills more people than handguns."
 
Complaints about the existence of sniper rifles and how they are uber-deadly to long distances...

OF COURSE. That's what they're for! We're one of the most technologically advanced countries in the world, and we are aided in protecting our country by way of these rifles. That's the MILITARY.

Civilians, of course, can buy them too. Unless you are a criminal who would be more likely to use it to do something immoral. How many crimes have been commited with a .50 caliber sniper rifle by civilians who obtained them legally?

I think the answer is somewhere around zero.
 
There aren't that many crimes where a .50bmg rifle would be beneficial. I doubt anyone has ever said "we're going to rob this bank but we need to kill the guard from a mile away" They're heavy ,expensive and loud.
 
Yupper, as far as Ted is concerned, HE is the only one who should be able to get away with murder....


Guilty until proven RICH.
 
Such litigation could impose tort liability, including punitive damages, for manufacturers, wholesalers, distributors, importers, retailers, and any others who participate in bringing to the civilian market any sniper rifle (in any caliber) or associated gear (such as ammunition or optics) that is used to kill or injure a human being or to damage property.
Click to expand...

So I guess all car manufacturers should be held liable for any sports/racing cars they market to the public. After all they often go two or even three times the legal speed limit on most highways, which is clearly illegal.
Nobody needs a vehicle that can go over the speed limit, and less powerful engines would produce fewer emissions helping the environment.
Only police and other special individuals need to be able to drive faster than the speed limit.
Manufacturers that create vehicles capable of more than 80mph should be held liable for any all all accidents that occur. Any manufacturer who sells aftermarket parts which are used to make a vehicle go faster, if such a vehicle equiped with such parts injures or kills someone, then the manufacter is liable.
(I don't really believe any of that crap, but it is not different than the anti gunners logic. Well actualy it is, they want to restrict or hold manufacterers responsible not just for the "sports cars" of firearms, but for the station wagons, and soccer mom mini vans too.)


Some of the antis apply such a dramticly different view to firearms compared to other objects that thier inability to see thier double standards is baffling.

They are also calling once again for a ban on firearms that exceed some sort of ballistic test and can defeat soft armor (isn't the second for fighting tyranny anyways, and won't the agents of a tyrant be wearing body armor?) which is usualy worn to defeat common pistol rounds. Such a standard would essentialy ban most rifles, and many handguns used for hunting or carried as defense against dangerous predators.
 
I don't really believe any of that crap, but it is not different than the anti gunners logic. Well actualy it is, they want to restrict or hold manufacterers responsible not just for the "sports cars" of firearms, bur for the station wagons, and soccer mom mini vans too.)
Click to expand...

Surprisingly enough a lot of those arguments have been used in attempts to ban certain types of cars.

That mentality is everywhere I guess.
 
I don't hunt, myself, unless you count hunting BS on the Brady Blog (a target rich environment). But trust me, you guys are on the list. They claim they are not after hunting rifles. They also claim they are not out to disarm the population. Sure they aren't. That's why they support every gun ban that ever came down the pike. Both lies, but that's not news.

Believe me. Once they've gotten all of the handguns, and the semi-auto assault rifle look-alikes, yours will be the only guns left to grab. In no time at all, your favorite .30 caliber, scoped bolt action, will magically morph into a terrorist sniper rifle.

The fact that Teddy Boy has already gone after .30-30 ammo, should tell you all you need to know.

"Guilty until proven RICH." That's classic, Notch. :D
 
From the VPC page about banning "sniper" rifles:
... nearly 2,000 yards, or almost 10 times a deer hunter's maximum effective range.
Click to expand...

Since when is the "maximum effective range" of a deer rifle about 200 yards? *$#*&^ing liars. And yet our congress-critters will eat it up. They also fail to mention in the part about military snipers engaging targets out to 1000 yards, that this is done with one of the most popular deer hunting calibers. Sigh...
 
That's part of the frustration when dealing with antis. They don't know the first thing about guns, so they fabricate their facts.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top