Guns OK for hunters, not self-defense

Status
Not open for further replies.
G

greyhound

Member
Joined
May 17, 2003
Messages
1,665
Location
Birmingham, AL
Seems like lately I hear a lot of politicians (mostly Democrats but not all) stating something to the effect that "while I support existing gun laws, I don't want to take guns taken away from hunters and sportsman". Am I the only one who sees these sort of statements as basically saying that owning a gun for self defense is not a valid reason for gun ownership?

At least from the folks on the gun forums, though we like to shoot in competitions and hunt, it seems that the main reason we have guns is for the defense of us and our families, either from the government or the predators out there.

I see this as nothing but an attempt to keep repeating this line over and over again until it is beaten into a mostly uncaring populace. Most people in this country are neither for or against guns, and they are the ones the powers that be are trying to sway.

Five years ago I never thought I'd believe this, so its quite a shock. I don't even think its all really about guns - its about the individual and his right to determine his own destiny, i.e. protect himself. I think the attitude that the government needs all the power over its citizens pervades through all levels of government - from the Democratic presidential candidates, to the Governor of Missouri who ignored the public's mandate, to the sheriff in Minnesota who doesn't want CCW and so signs his permits with "sub recuso" (under protest) next to his signature.

I don't really know what we can do about it, either. Though I am glad post 9/11 that Mr. Bush is the President, as far as "nanny-statism" goes I don't think Republicans are much better than Democrats. I guess its the old metaphor about boiling the frog slowly; its been straight downhill since 1965 or so. And 22 months later I guess I finally have to give up hope that 9/11 would be a permanent wake up call to the U.S., as opposed to a 2 month patriotic outpouring. The tattered, forgotten flags in my neighborhood speak to that. If that wasn't bad enough, every day when I go to work I walk past a shop that still has a yellowed, torn, sunfaded, newspaper insert of the flag with "September 11, we will never forget" on it. I just shake my head ruefully.

Sorry this post rambles about many things....I need to go hug my dog now!
 
See my posts on a nearby thread, "Why we can't be trusted with bayonets". BTW, is your retired greyhound still quick enough to chase _live_ rabbits and catch them?
 
I know what you mean about the yellowed newspaper print flags.
Per my prediction a year ago, the sheeple will soon enough go back to grazing and forget all about the matter at hand.
They are into "fads". Cell phones, Dixie Chicks, bla, bla, bla. Very predictable.
Wonder what will the next fad will be?
 
That is a good one about bayonets! My girlfriend has a crossbow she made herself for SGA. I told her its probably illegal and she should bury it in her back yard. :D

I've never seen the little man chase a rabbit, but one time he took off after a squirrel in the yard. The squirrel was about 20 yards away and 10 feet from a tree and my dog was nipping at his butt when he scrambled up the tree. Damdest thing I ever saw, 0-40 mph in the blink of an eye. I don't know what he would have done with the squirrel had he caught it as he's the least aggresive dog I've ever known. He is big and jet black so he gets mistaken for a Doberman a lot. Once when out walking he scattered a group of gangbanger type youths (yes bad SA on my part , I should have crossed the street.) One of the young toughs cried out "Got-damn, get that thing away from me, yo" not realizing that the dog was lunging at him just to be petted! He got an extra treat that night! :D
 
The Democrat's asinine assertion that the only legitimate reason to own guns is to shoot animals is exceeded in stupidity by only one thing--their belief that the guy who owns a hunting rifle that he shoots twice a year is the one that really cares about the gun issue!

Don't get me wrong, I support the rights of hunters, but I am not a hunter myself and get REALLY burned when some hunter type says that "you shouldn't own ____ because it's not made for hunting." Howard Dean thinks he is defusing the gun issue because he is on the record as supporting the right to own hunting weapons!!!

I think the Democrats dramatically underestimate how important the freedom to own non-hunting firearms is to us gun owners--particularly full-cap semiauto rifles of modern design, and handguns. Unfortunately, the Republicans seem to underestimate this too, or else they wouldn't be making noises about enacting another ban on modern-style rifles.
 
Howard Dean is the one who starting the thinking process that led to this rant. If you caught him on "Meet The Press" a couple weeks ago you know what I'm talking about. He basically said that people in a low crime state like Vermont should be able to own guns (for hunting), but folks in high crime states shouldn't. He also blathered on about "machine guns". Though he said there should be no "new" Federal guns laws, he clearly had no problem with the states taking away gun ownership. Add in his other socialist stances, and I can't see how any gun owner can see Dean as better for them than George Bush (and I am far from a Bush fan).
 
The argument allows its adherents, particularly Democrats, to be half pregnant. Its appealing because it seems to straddle the fence. It allows them to be anti-handgun (initially) but pro good guns. The position also served to divide the gun owning and using community. Good gunners (hunters and skeet, clays, and trap) are left alone while bad gunners (handguns) can be marginalized. Lots of restrictive legislation has been written around handguns. Systems are in place to begin the marginalization process of good gunners.

The AWB was instrumental in drawing a distinction among good gunners. We now have eeevil black guns deemed bad but "hunting" rifles are good. Intruding into the latest move is the developing ban on .50 shoulder fired rifles. The original AWB made the eeevil designation based on cosmetics along. The future ban on .50's will more than likely be written around centerfired cartridges. Get that in place and then go back and address good gunners who use the newest eeevil rifle. . . . . the sniper rifle. Your garden variety centerfired, high powered, scoped hunting rifle will be demonized as a "sniper rifle."

The second amendment wars are wars fought over definitions. Anti-2nd types know how the game is played. I'm not sure pro-2nd type have figured it out.
 
This is the same line of bull crap that is used in England and Australia. Self defence, especially with a gun of any kind, is against the law. But in certain areas you can still hunt and target shoot.

I'm glad I'm getting old. I don't know how much more of this liberal diarehha I can take.
 
I had a mildly interesting discussion with my mother-in-law over the Independence Day weekend. She voiced her opinion that it's OK for hunters to have rifles and shotguns (although not "high-capacity" ones), but that all handguns and military-style weapons should be outlawed.

She understands that I shoot trap, sporting clays and also high-power, and said that even though there are some "sporting" uses for military rifles, that society could do better without them.

THEN, in an attempt to bolster her argument, she tells the following story (which is paraphrased and shortened... but the gist is retained):

Local boy with somewhat prominent father is shot in a drive-by. He's laid up with some significant injuries for several months. A while after the initial shooting, two people come into his house and shoot him again, this time killing him. My M-I-L seems to blame the availability of handguns in both shootings.

For a number of reasons, this was not the time and place to rip her patently absurd arguments to shreds. I intend to follow up at some later date.

The important lesson to me is that this is a very intelligent woman, who has reached her conclusions (IMHO) based on:

1) Emotions
2) Lack of exposure/comfort with firearms
3) A professional bias (she works in education)

My greatest concern with respect to the whole RKBA issue is the trend for a large number of people to no longer have exposure to shooting. They view guns as something from movies and the 10:00 news. Either way, the violence and irresponsible handling IS the impression. That's why I think it is critical for firearm owners to behave responsibly and always be considerate and thoughtful in discussions. That, and introduce as many folks as possible to clay games... I've yet to see someone (even an ardent "anti") fail to grin like crazy when they powder their first target.
 
yup, im afraid their is a movement to make self defense illegal, "bad", and looked down upon, and this movement goes hand in hang with gun control proper
look at the fact that small handguns cannot be imported because they are unsuitable for sporting purposes
nevermind the fact that the poor inner city mother might be able to afford a small, cheap, and reliable handgun from FEG of Hungary, nope, the citizen's right to self defense is trumpted by liberal's concern that the guns might fall into the wrong hands
i love when politicians claim to be pro gun by endorsing hunting or other "acceptable" activities [skeet and trap]
ill belive them to be earnest when instead of pretending to hunt they show up at a THR shoot with a AK 47 :D
waitone made a good point about how gun owners are divided when the "good" gun owners get endorsed by 80% of the politicians and breath their sigh of relief and let the "bad" gunners fend for themselves
BSR
 
I've got to add that, as I read the Second Amendment, every gun control law back to Miller ought to be chucked into the trash bin. IMO, the RKBA ought to allow a citizen to own, without permit, fee, or some idiot sheriff's permission, anything an infantry soldier carries. Fully automatic, grenade launching, lazer-beamed, whatever. The only limit I'd draw is on crew-served weapons, e.g. Abrams tanks, F-16 fighters, WMD. The Founders knew well the difference between a "militia" with muskets and cannons. It has been repeatedly shown that the most potent military force is the grunt with a rifle. If a government doesn't trust their people with the same weapons that they arm their military with, then that government has lost it's legitimacy. It's never been about hunting, target-shooting, or self-defense. It's always been about keeping government honest and accountable.

Other than that, I'm pretty wishy-washy about it.
 
It's this way:

We have already lost, in this country, one of the most important things the founding fathers tried to leave us: the concept that government is strictly limited.

Among many, many other things, the government should have no involvement in:

  • What kind of diet anybody chooses to eat, fat, lean or otherwise
  • What recreational drugs idiots may choose to use or abuse
  • Whether I have a gun in my pocket
  • Whether, as a restaurant owner, I choose to let my patrons smoke
  • Whether or not I carry or can even obtain medical insurance
  • Whether my kids can play with fireworks

When we obey unconstitutional laws, we buy into the whole thing. We become sheep. Of course, the price of ignoring such laws can be quite steep. It's just that the alternative is even more costly, in the end.

When the duel was outlawed, we lost a lot. Political accountability was the first casualty.
 
My newly-favorite one-liner for anti's and British Government officials who don't believe in self-defense is from 2 dogs' signature:

"The unarmed man can only flee from evil. And evil is not overcome by fleeing from it" -Jeff Cooper

My old favorite was from somewhere at TFL: "Making the sheep more sheep-llike does not deter the wolves."
 
The vocal minority (and I do believe it's getting to be just that) should SHOUT out louder in defense of your RIGHT to arms. There is no qualifier or reasons given in conjunction with the 2nd amendment.

If one is not able to defend one's self against anything/anyone wishing to do harm, what is there to do? Just accept that we will all become victims at some stage of our lives? That's an unacceptable outlook to me.
 
I really believe that in this day and age, almost all of the politicos in charge (from your local sherriff up to the President) do not trust average citizens to be able to make sound decisions about self defense.

And the liberals really do believe that if people carry guns there'll be shootouts over parking spaces, etc.

Ther was a time when the self-reliant individualist was seen as a noble, proud figure who helped build this nation. Now he is portrayed as a racist psycho looking for the black helicopters.

45-auto, you are 100% right. We've lost limited government. They want us to believe they can protect us. Not even logic and personal experience can change this, we had the sniper here in MD/VA shooting people at the Home Depot, and the MD liberals are still yammering about how no one should have a gun. **Sigh**
 
The politicians know exactly what they are doing. "Self-defense"
is considered faintly barbarous, you know. And hunting isn't exactly
contemporary society's favorite pastime either. The only lethal weapon
the elites will tolerate is the lawsuit.

If gun owners hope to keep their guns they are going to have to be
very straight about why we own them and not be embarrassed about
what the Second Amendment is really all about. We are still, too
many of us, in an "apologetic" mode.
 
"Hunting OK" code for step one for liberals

Why are Shotguns and hunting OK versus handguns and EBR, hmmm?

Being supportive of hunting is, IMHO, Democratic liberal code for:

"LOOK, LOOK, WE'RE NOT REALLY GUN GRABBERS AND IT'S CERTAINLY SAFE TO VOTE FOR US. SEE WE GO TRAP SHOOTING AND HUNTING (insert posed photo of Jean Carnahan here looking very uncomortable with a Remington). WE ONLY WANT TO GET RID OF THOSE EVIL BLACK RIFLES AND HANDGUNS."

A few weeks ago there was actually a whole thread on the DU that openly discussed what "we progressives" needed to say to keep the pro 2nd people happy enough to not vote against us again. It even admitted that once "we" are in we can do whatever we feel is right because the end always justifies the means and we mean well.

There were a few folks over there that pointed out how phony that was but the overall response was along the lines of "Well everyone lies to get in office and the NRA are all evil monsters".

I really believe that their goal is to get back in power, where they feel they belong, to move their personal view of how things should be along as quickly as they can. I'll believe they really have changed when a Democrat stands up for and supports repealing some of the existing "feel good" legislation and repudiates Feinstein and Schumer.

Don P.
 
Thanks for the good word, Greyhound.

Don P, you make a good point.

I would not vote for a Democrat if that candidate owned a large gun collection, shot up 500 practice rounds every week and was rabidly pro 2A.

The reason is, the mere fact that they are members of the Democrat party means that, if elected, they serve to bolster the swine like Hillary, Feinstein, Kennedy and Schumer. And if they get a majority, it'll be the urban dems (who grow faint and wet themselves at the thought of a gun) who run things. Not the dem from Montana or Alaska who really does understand guns.

Frankly, if the founding fathers were still around, I think they'd be issuing declarations. And I know they'd be packin' heat.
 
Sorry to say, a few of my hunting friends who are teachers and LEOs voted for Rendell in PA...a union/$$$ thing trumped gun rights, so I was told.

Guns ok for hunters, not self-defense. I hope my small sample of hunter friends are not representative of all PA gun owners.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top