I had an interesting conversation with a "Hunter" this morning at work. The conversation started out with us talking about renewing the AWB and how the draconian version was gonna impact his semi-automatic shotguns and ended up with talking about so called assault weapons.
My friend turned out to be (unknown to me) a freaking anti. He out and out stated that as far as he was concerned they could take all assault weapons and toss 'em into the sea because no average Joe needed a military type rifle.
OOPS! That set me off because I'm no hunter - all I shoot is paper and I do it with weapons not particularly well suited to hunting.
I then explained the 2nd Amendment to him and the Miller decision that pretty much says that individuals should have access to any weapon that a US Army infantry man is issued as a personal weapon. Surprisingly he took to that and agreed.
BUT he stuck to his guns on the "no average Joe" argument anyway.
I told him that no one needed a Ferrari or a Lexus, a Porsche or a Volkswagon either - should people be prohibited from owning those. I told him that no family of 4 needed a 3000 square foot house and could live just fine in a 1200 square foot house so maybe we should take those away too. Then I told him no one needed to hunt either because all the food anyone "needs" is in his local supermarket and that as far as I was concerned they could take away all the hunting type weapons and toss 'em in the sea because no one "needed" to go out and kill innocent animals when the wildlife management guys were better trained and better suited to do it (I don't believe that but that's what I told him to make the point)! That got his attention and at that point we both knew the discussion was getting a little heated and we both took a deep breath and toned it down a bit.
I'm a target shooter and he's a hunter. He pointed out that I could plink with a .22 and I agreed that indeed I could and do. He said I didn't need an AR to plink at 100 yards. I said no I didn't but I do if I want to plink at 200 to 400. But that's not plinking says he - sure it is said I. I have a lot of fun shooting paint can sized rocks at those ranges or cans or what ever else I can find - just like you have a lot of fun shooting those deer at 200 to 400 yards or the quail and pheasants you hunt. I could see him getting nervous so then I asked what he was going to do when some liberal politician decided that Rem 700 BDL in 7mm Mag he used for deer hunting was not a sporting weapon but a sniper rifle way more powerful and way more dangerous than an AR? That ended the conversation - he said he didn't want to talk about this anymore. I could see he meant it and since both our coffee cups were still half full we switched over to talking about the OU-LSU game.
This was an eye opening conversation for me. Greg is a gun guy - or so I thought. But his attitude is IMO worse than that of an out and out gun grabber. I knew in the back of my mind that there were hunters with his attitude - I'd just not ever run into one.
I suppose I came down pretty hard on him but to be honest I don't feel bad about that at all. He's got something to think about now that he didn't before.
My friend turned out to be (unknown to me) a freaking anti. He out and out stated that as far as he was concerned they could take all assault weapons and toss 'em into the sea because no average Joe needed a military type rifle.
OOPS! That set me off because I'm no hunter - all I shoot is paper and I do it with weapons not particularly well suited to hunting.
I then explained the 2nd Amendment to him and the Miller decision that pretty much says that individuals should have access to any weapon that a US Army infantry man is issued as a personal weapon. Surprisingly he took to that and agreed.
BUT he stuck to his guns on the "no average Joe" argument anyway.
I told him that no one needed a Ferrari or a Lexus, a Porsche or a Volkswagon either - should people be prohibited from owning those. I told him that no family of 4 needed a 3000 square foot house and could live just fine in a 1200 square foot house so maybe we should take those away too. Then I told him no one needed to hunt either because all the food anyone "needs" is in his local supermarket and that as far as I was concerned they could take away all the hunting type weapons and toss 'em in the sea because no one "needed" to go out and kill innocent animals when the wildlife management guys were better trained and better suited to do it (I don't believe that but that's what I told him to make the point)! That got his attention and at that point we both knew the discussion was getting a little heated and we both took a deep breath and toned it down a bit.
I'm a target shooter and he's a hunter. He pointed out that I could plink with a .22 and I agreed that indeed I could and do. He said I didn't need an AR to plink at 100 yards. I said no I didn't but I do if I want to plink at 200 to 400. But that's not plinking says he - sure it is said I. I have a lot of fun shooting paint can sized rocks at those ranges or cans or what ever else I can find - just like you have a lot of fun shooting those deer at 200 to 400 yards or the quail and pheasants you hunt. I could see him getting nervous so then I asked what he was going to do when some liberal politician decided that Rem 700 BDL in 7mm Mag he used for deer hunting was not a sporting weapon but a sniper rifle way more powerful and way more dangerous than an AR? That ended the conversation - he said he didn't want to talk about this anymore. I could see he meant it and since both our coffee cups were still half full we switched over to talking about the OU-LSU game.
This was an eye opening conversation for me. Greg is a gun guy - or so I thought. But his attitude is IMO worse than that of an out and out gun grabber. I knew in the back of my mind that there were hunters with his attitude - I'd just not ever run into one.
I suppose I came down pretty hard on him but to be honest I don't feel bad about that at all. He's got something to think about now that he didn't before.
