WonderNine
member
The Second Amendment was not created to support "hunting".
This "reporter" REALLY Needs To Hear From Us!
- Thread starter Airwolf
- Start date
- Status
Don, Pravada didn't dare say anything contrary about the former Soviet leadership either. The Sun-Times is in the same boat. What is a real shame is if the news media would really do their job Daley and several of his cronies would be in jail. They have given up on investigative journalism in favor of political partonage, which makes them much more dangerous. They have become disinformation services.
Carlos Cabeza
Member
Exactly what ZundFolge said, It's a disguised divide and conquer mantra that has been very effective in making the hunter believe that thier "tools" will not be targeted by additional legislation or bans. The reporter's reference to "enthusiasts" as
"gun nuts" is repulsive and repugnant and does not give credit to the thousands of men who paid with their lives to preserve and protect the valuable liberties that our freedoms afford us as Americans.
"gun nuts" is repulsive and repugnant and does not give credit to the thousands of men who paid with their lives to preserve and protect the valuable liberties that our freedoms afford us as Americans.
gburner
member
I write. It is one of the most intense and rewarding things I can do indoors.
In order to write, I use words.
When I was a youngster, my father gave me an old Random House dictionary. As I grew older, when my vocabulary was better developed, I made him promise to give me the famly thesaurus when he passed. It is an heirloom.
In this time of National crisis it is now imperative that serious writers separate themselves from anarchists, naysayers and the babbling rabble.
When I first began to learn about the proposed Governmental controls on speech
I felt concerned. But a thoughtful review has shown me that these controls will in no way harm my ability to express myself in writing.
Governmental permits necessary to speak in public will not affect my ability to write.
Mandatory governmental review of all original written material will not hinder me from writing.
A list of proscribed words and topics will not inhibit my freedom to write.
Expunging certain letters of the alphabet will serve as a challenge to me, rather than an impediment.
Felony jail time for use of subjunctive clauses is a small price to pay.
A one month waiting period for paper, pens, ink, pencils and typewriter ribbon will only deter the 'rabble' and 'word nuts'.
Though considered an infringement by some lunatics who seek to speak feely on any subject because of the specious
arguement that 'freedom of speech' is a
God given right, these simple and common sense restrictions will help a benevolent central government shepard thought and speech in this country into acceptable forms.
In order to write, I use words.
When I was a youngster, my father gave me an old Random House dictionary. As I grew older, when my vocabulary was better developed, I made him promise to give me the famly thesaurus when he passed. It is an heirloom.
In this time of National crisis it is now imperative that serious writers separate themselves from anarchists, naysayers and the babbling rabble.
When I first began to learn about the proposed Governmental controls on speech
I felt concerned. But a thoughtful review has shown me that these controls will in no way harm my ability to express myself in writing.
Governmental permits necessary to speak in public will not affect my ability to write.
Mandatory governmental review of all original written material will not hinder me from writing.
A list of proscribed words and topics will not inhibit my freedom to write.
Expunging certain letters of the alphabet will serve as a challenge to me, rather than an impediment.
Felony jail time for use of subjunctive clauses is a small price to pay.
A one month waiting period for paper, pens, ink, pencils and typewriter ribbon will only deter the 'rabble' and 'word nuts'.
Though considered an infringement by some lunatics who seek to speak feely on any subject because of the specious
arguement that 'freedom of speech' is a
God given right, these simple and common sense restrictions will help a benevolent central government shepard thought and speech in this country into acceptable forms.
Malone LaVeigh
Member
My e-mail to Mr. Bowman (for what it's worth):
Mr. Bowman:
I have recently read your editorial regarding the need to separate the needs of gun-owning hunters from the demands expressed by those who wish to own firearms for any of a number of other purposes. I was especially interested by your repeated reference to "my right to own a shotgun or rifle for hunting." I thought you might let me know where you heard about that right. As a hunter and gun owner, I have made an exhaustive search for the delineation of any such right. I find no reference to a right to own any sort of apparatus for the taking of duck or deer in our constitution. It is absent from the writings of the founders of our republic, or any of the thinkers who gave us the Enlightenment and framed the concepts our form of government is based on. I don't find it in any of the religious traditions of the East or West. The Greek and Roman philosophers are silent on it.
I'm sure you must be in possession of some important writings of which I am unaware. For surely you wouldn't assert any such right without some fundamental basis for the right. I mean, if your assertion has no precedent, it could be taken away from you at the whim of any political faction that gained power. And then where would you be? Utterly without the power to enjoy your recreational hours as you like.
Now, if there were a right to own arms because it is fundamental to being a free society, because it means we are all equal in this country and no one has the right to prevent you from defending yourself, that would also protect your precious right to shoot holes in furry critters. If the framers of the constitution had included, for instance, some sort of an amendment to guarantee us the right to, oh, maybe, "keep and bear arms," or something, it would do a lot to make us a freer society and not upset your vacation plans too much. Maybe you'd like to look into that at some point. I mean, in addition to the other information you seem to posses.
Mr. Bowman:
I have recently read your editorial regarding the need to separate the needs of gun-owning hunters from the demands expressed by those who wish to own firearms for any of a number of other purposes. I was especially interested by your repeated reference to "my right to own a shotgun or rifle for hunting." I thought you might let me know where you heard about that right. As a hunter and gun owner, I have made an exhaustive search for the delineation of any such right. I find no reference to a right to own any sort of apparatus for the taking of duck or deer in our constitution. It is absent from the writings of the founders of our republic, or any of the thinkers who gave us the Enlightenment and framed the concepts our form of government is based on. I don't find it in any of the religious traditions of the East or West. The Greek and Roman philosophers are silent on it.
I'm sure you must be in possession of some important writings of which I am unaware. For surely you wouldn't assert any such right without some fundamental basis for the right. I mean, if your assertion has no precedent, it could be taken away from you at the whim of any political faction that gained power. And then where would you be? Utterly without the power to enjoy your recreational hours as you like.
Now, if there were a right to own arms because it is fundamental to being a free society, because it means we are all equal in this country and no one has the right to prevent you from defending yourself, that would also protect your precious right to shoot holes in furry critters. If the framers of the constitution had included, for instance, some sort of an amendment to guarantee us the right to, oh, maybe, "keep and bear arms," or something, it would do a lot to make us a freer society and not upset your vacation plans too much. Maybe you'd like to look into that at some point. I mean, in addition to the other information you seem to posses.
Elmer Snerd
Member
rick458
Member
That was very well said and pre 9/11 as well
Awesome
Awesome
fallingblock
Member
Malone....
That was a fine letter
That was a fine letter
mdsteele
Member
I didn't read the rest of this, so I apologize if it has been done already.
This article gave him "what for"
http://www.federalobserver.com/archive.php?aid=5240
This article gave him "what for"
http://www.federalobserver.com/archive.php?aid=5240
rick458
Member
mdsteele
WOW nothing like going into the fight armed is there
WOW nothing like going into the fight armed is there
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2003
- Messages
- 13,343
Not to take away from Malones letter which is masterfully written.
Chisled between two colums in the great forum in the ancient city of Timgad built by Romes Third Legion in 100 A.D.
Which is now in modern day Tunisa I belive or possibly Algeria it's near the border in any case.
"Venari lavari ludere ridere hoc est viveri"
"To hunt, To bathe, to play,-that is to live"
Hunting is an ancient and revered past time. It is an expression of freedom. It is an activity that is exclusive to free men. Tyrants, socilaists and monarchs around the world have long tried to restrict free men from hunting. To restrict a hunter from the hunt is to crush that mans spirit.
I know of very few hunters who are not gun rights advocates as well. They do exist obviously but I don't think you'll find many out west (that of course does not include California). These types along with anti gunners and anti hunters tend to be from urban areas.
What distresses me is that I've been reading ALOT of anti hunting quotes on this web site. And by which I mean quotes right out of the PETA play book. Non of the people who've posted here are included as of yet.
You can not be a radical animal rights person and be pro freedom. that's like saying your a National Socialst and pro freedom. the two cannot by definition co-exist. It P.O's me to no end when I see pro gun guys who are anti- hunting should be illegal. I find that to be some kind of cheap self P.C. gratification. "I believe in guns but I'm better than your average redneck gun wacko because I don't believe we should kill animals". Sorry guys but that just doesn't fly with me. And the same visa versa.
In my mind Hunting and RKBA are intricately intertwined wether or not hunting is a constutional amendment. That is coverd in my mind when we were granted the right to liberty and the pursuit happiness.
I guess I should add that I am also an NRA life member as well as a member of the RMEF the SCI and the American Association of Professional Hunting Consultants. I take my gun rights real serious. I take my hunting rights just as serious.
Hunters are by far and away the largest population of shooters in America. It sounds like many of need some education.....
But the challenge still stands to you anti Hunters on this board. I want you to explain and defend your opinons.
And once again let me explain something. there are two types of hunters in this world. Period.
1. A substinace. A person who must hunt to live. There are very few of these people left in the world. Some African tribes some remote groups of Inuit in Greenland and extreme Northern Canada and i'm sure others that i am omitting.
2. People who hunt because they want to. Even if they claim to do it only for food they have the choice to not hunt. These people are Sport hunters because they have a choice to not hunt yet choose to do so. AKA every hunter who has the ability to post on this board!!!
So don't give me the old "I'm moraley superior to sport hunters because I only hunt for food B.S."
That is precisiely like some hunter saying I don't believe that anybody should own guns unless it's for hunting. Either you believe in the RKBA or not there is no middle ground.
Either you support hunting or not just the same.
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2003
- Messages
- 13,343
The above post was supposed to be on the Legal and political page and posted to the Animal Rights/Anti hunter thread. Can somebody please help me put it there as it is totally out of place here.
H&Hhunter (Computer illiterate and fat fingered)
H&Hhunter (Computer illiterate and fat fingered)
iamkris
Member
Here's my email to him:
From: [email protected] Save Address
To: [email protected]
Subject: Are you really serious about your article in the Sun Times
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 23:46:12 +0000 [View Source]
I read a copy of your article in the Sun Times on your support for Daley's
gun legislation and how it "in no way affects my right to own a shotgun or
rifle for hunting" Hunters need to separate themselves from gun nuts,
February 16, 2003 BY DALE BOWMAN STAFF REPORTER
At first I was aghast...then I thought "surely he wrote this as parody"...now
I'm not sure.
Do you really believe this?
Are you really so narrow in your thought that you think this is a sensible
proposal. Let me, if you will, "fisk" your article
* "Military style" weapons -- what do you consider "military"? Black guns?
Hmmm, that looks like a Remington 700 ADL All Weather. Semi-autos? Hmmm,
there goes your Browning BAR. Pistol grips? Bennelli shotguns. M16s? You
don't think Camp Perry rifle competition is a legitimate sport?
* Ban handguns -- do you not think handguns are a legitimate hunting tool?
How about for handgun competition? How about for a single mother to defend
her family in the crappy neighborhood she's forced to live in?
* Gun fingerprinting -- I can't believe you haven't done even cursory
investigation into the fallacy that is gun fingerprinting. Please read this
simple explanation...http://www.gunfacts.info/
* Increase the cost of a FOID card -- how about we increase the cost of the
resident hunting license while we're at it to? Say to about $2000 per year?
Does that sound appealing? No? Well, better watch for it when some nanny
group "I know what's good for you" decides that hunting isn't PC anymore but
can't get hunting bans enacted.
* Background checks -- apparently you don't understand the law. Checks are
required for anyone buying a gun from a dealer. Otherwise it's just like any
other face-to-face private sale.
Frankly, your attitude appalls me. The attitude that "my sport is legitimate
but his over there isn't" is elitist and isn't cognizent of the reality of
the motivations behind the gun grabbers. "Surely we must all hang together,
or we will all hang separately"...your article, sir, has just created the
first loop in the noose that will eventually tighten on your own neck.
From: [email protected] Save Address
To: [email protected]
Subject: Are you really serious about your article in the Sun Times
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 23:46:12 +0000 [View Source]
I read a copy of your article in the Sun Times on your support for Daley's
gun legislation and how it "in no way affects my right to own a shotgun or
rifle for hunting" Hunters need to separate themselves from gun nuts,
February 16, 2003 BY DALE BOWMAN STAFF REPORTER
At first I was aghast...then I thought "surely he wrote this as parody"...now
I'm not sure.
Do you really believe this?
Are you really so narrow in your thought that you think this is a sensible
proposal. Let me, if you will, "fisk" your article
* "Military style" weapons -- what do you consider "military"? Black guns?
Hmmm, that looks like a Remington 700 ADL All Weather. Semi-autos? Hmmm,
there goes your Browning BAR. Pistol grips? Bennelli shotguns. M16s? You
don't think Camp Perry rifle competition is a legitimate sport?
* Ban handguns -- do you not think handguns are a legitimate hunting tool?
How about for handgun competition? How about for a single mother to defend
her family in the crappy neighborhood she's forced to live in?
* Gun fingerprinting -- I can't believe you haven't done even cursory
investigation into the fallacy that is gun fingerprinting. Please read this
simple explanation...http://www.gunfacts.info/
* Increase the cost of a FOID card -- how about we increase the cost of the
resident hunting license while we're at it to? Say to about $2000 per year?
Does that sound appealing? No? Well, better watch for it when some nanny
group "I know what's good for you" decides that hunting isn't PC anymore but
can't get hunting bans enacted.
* Background checks -- apparently you don't understand the law. Checks are
required for anyone buying a gun from a dealer. Otherwise it's just like any
other face-to-face private sale.
Frankly, your attitude appalls me. The attitude that "my sport is legitimate
but his over there isn't" is elitist and isn't cognizent of the reality of
the motivations behind the gun grabbers. "Surely we must all hang together,
or we will all hang separately"...your article, sir, has just created the
first loop in the noose that will eventually tighten on your own neck.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
