News:

Welcome to our site!

Main Menu

NRA's enemies list.

Started by Brian37, February 14, 2013, 10:39:53 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Mathias

Quote from: "buttfinger"The need to go to Laos to kill a tiger is not indicative of responsible hunting.  Very rarely is anything but the pelt harvested.  But E disagree about the level of fanaticism involved.  Hunters, even unscrupulous ones, don't shun education and they certainly don't meet 5 times a week to discuss how to be more effective at it, nor do they do it daily and record the amount of time spent doing it, turn in these time records and use it as a basis for looking down on others who don't hunt enough.  Hunters also don't excommunicate people for hunting differently than they do.


Ok, I accept I overreacted, but because I was hideous pleased to kill an animal just to kill.
"There is no logic in the existence of any god".
Myself.

SGOS

Quote from: "buttfinger"
Quote from: "SGOS"But sport hunting it is not about gun control, just as gun control is not about taking away hunting rifles.  The NRA and hunting are not the same thing.
Sure it is.  A .223 is a legitimate hunting rifle, despite protests from Piers Morgan, et. al.  When they take away small caliber rifles and mass shootings stop being 3 small bullets in one victim and start being one large bullet through 3 victims, what are they going to ban next?  In fact, every criterion for something being an "assault rifle" (I use the quotation marks because an actual assault rifle needs to be fully automatic or bust-fire, and are already illegal) is cosmetic.
I don't know what Piers Morgan says, and I don't really care.  Nor am I impressed by slippery slope arguments advanced by the NRA.

stromboli

Quote from: "buttfinger"
Quote from: "SGOS"But sport hunting it is not about gun control, just as gun control is not about taking away hunting rifles.  The NRA and hunting are not the same thing.
Sure it is.  A .223 is a legitimate hunting rifle, despite protests from Piers Morgan, et. al.  When they take away small caliber rifles and mass shootings stop being 3 small bullets in one victim and start being one large bullet through 3 victims, what are they going to ban next?  In fact, every criterion for something being an "assault rifle" (I use the quotation marks because an actual assault rifle needs to be fully automatic or bust-fire, and are already illegal) is cosmetic.

.223 is a legitimate hunting CALIBER. So is .308, by far the two most widely used for assault rifles. But the Kalashnikov rifle (7.62X39) is not the same as the American (7.62X51). As far as I know there are no hunting weapons that use the Russian round, or very few. It is a lower power round and optimized for the AK. But caliber and rifle are two different things. In every state I am familiar with, magazine capacity is limited to 5 rounds, or else 4 and one in the magazine. .223 is a small to midsize game round, typically used for coyotes and antelope. In both cases, shots are most often out past 200 yards. An assault rifle, even with a scope, is not a good hunting weapon. My experience is that you have one shot at an animal, at most two. I owned both an AR15 and a Browning BLR .308 lever action. I could get off two shots with the BLR, because a lever action is fast.

.223 is not optimum for a mule deer, possibly for a white tail. But we are talking assault rifles, high capacity magazines designed for one purpose- to kill people. I read the 2nd amendment- it doesn't say assault rifle anywhere, trust me. Assault rifles are not the best choice for hunting weapons. Making the claim that they are hunting weapons is frankly a weak one.

The current proposed laws are too far reaching, in that respect I agree. Including weapons like a Ruger 10/22 is silly- I don't think there are many instances of one being used for mass murder. But weapons like revolvers, shotguns, bolt action rifles, lever actions, pump actions and so forth are still available. The only thing I ever hunted with my AR15 were rabbits, and that was overkill. I can't think of a legitimate reason for mass ownership of assault rifles, period.

the focus should be as much or more on the mental health side- we have a very poor record of mental health care. A sophisticated mental health screening process, more strictly enforced background checks and other ways to screen potential wackos should happen as part of the process.

Mathias

It's easier to say that I believe in god than killing an animal for hobby. I'll never understand you, americans ...
"There is no logic in the existence of any god".
Myself.

buttfinger

Quote from: "Mathias"worse, have a feeling of exhilaration when hunting prey.
This is a physiological reaction to endorphins released as part of an evolutionary "strategy" to make on a more effective hunter.  It needs no justification: it just is.

buttfinger

Quote from: "SGOS"Nor am I impressed by slippery slope arguments advanced by the NRA.
Good for you.  The fact remains, it's not a slippery slope fallacy, but the directed goal vocalized by the forerunners of the anti-gun movement.  It's also a slope that we've SEEN in action in Britain.  They're so far down that slope that you have to have DOCUMENTATION of being a butcher or chef in order to transport kitchen knives, and they're currently (or perhaps done, but recently did) debating banning kitchen knives that are too pointy.  Britain is at a place were I don't want to be, and the nanny-staters who are seeking to ban "assault rifles" have openly admitted that it's their goal to legislate us into the same place.

buttfinger

Quote from: "stromboli".223 is not optimum for a mule deer, possibly for a white tail.
Agreed.

QuoteBut we are talking assault rifles, high capacity magazines designed for one purpose- to kill people.
Actually, we're talking about a rifle whose sole purpose is to fire a bullet, and a second one quickly, if needed.

QuoteI read the 2nd amendment- it doesn't say assault rifle anywhere, trust me.
I have too.  I noticed it also doesn't mention hunting.f  Protect your homestead with a bolt-cation rifle.  Good luck.

QuoteAssault rifles are not the best choice for hunting weapons. Making the claim that they are hunting weapons is frankly a weak one.
I agree and I would not personally use one, but the myriad hunters who successfully DO use them negates your objection.

Quotethe focus should be as much or more on the mental health side- we have a very poor record of mental health care. A sophisticated mental health screening process, more strictly enforced background checks and other ways to screen potential wackos should happen as part of the process.
I agree, the difference is that I balk at banning a gun that is already used in less than .5% of shootings, while retaining pistols that are used in the bulk of crimes, yet calling it a reasonable thing.  Especially when we consider that the whole argument is based on cosmetics.

buttfinger

Quote from: "Mathias"It's easier to say that I believe in god than killing an animal for hobby. I'll never understand you, americans ...
I only kill for food.  your argument is a strawman.

Anonymous

Quote from: "Brian37"
Quote from: "Mathias"I think there's nothing more banal and involuted that shoot a living creature for fun, except aliens, zombies and matchbox. I Would be proud to be on this list

I think hunting is a part of our evolutionary experience in finding resources. It makes less sense now that technology and farming allow us to raise animals without hunting them. But if these hunters insist on it, just don't call it a sport, sports have level neutral rules and fields of play both sides have the opportunity to use. Hunting is not a sport, it is a trap, it is a trick. So if people  hunt, eat it, kill it quickly and as painlessly as possible and don't call it a sport.

But yea I agree, a grown man or women who thinks they are cleaver tricking an unarmed animal knowing the animal doesn't have the same ability, why would you get joy out of that? That would be like  a jock bully beating up a nerd to show off to the other jocks. It is just a childish form of narcissism.
YOu obviously have never hunted if that what you think it is.  Any true sportsman (hunter) will give the advantage to the animal by tracking it down.  Getting in a treestand is not being a true sportsman as you remove all the advatnages the animal has.

mykcob4

The NRA is on MY enemies list!

Anonymous

Quote from: "Mathias"buttfinger,

I agree with the second part of your arguments. Regarding the first, the animals do not need the man for kill old and/or sick animals. because there are several younger males, predators and nature disasters that do that. Instead using rifles and traps, cravenly appealing to the best instrument for adaptation in this planet, the intelligence.
Taking off the cultural part that perseveres in the habit of hunting, I still think an involuted act. Anyone "infected" by civilization should have aversion to hunt for fun.

You need to look into hunting laws.  People hunting for fun are usually poachers that allow the carcass to rot.  What is the point in that?  These are sick dillusional people that need to be shot before they up their prey.  Hunting is fun, but it should be done for hte meat.  I can go out and get one deer and one elk and feed my family for an entire year.  You however will spend thousands of dollars a year on burgers alone.

stromboli

Those who haven't hunted do not know what is involved. You are stalking an animal that can smell and hear you more than two hundred yards before you see it. It is knowledgeable of humans, knowing that smells like gun oil and human sweat spell danger. It is also naturally colored to blend in with surroundings and can move with great speed when alerted. Go and scout an area prior to the hunt. You will see plenty of game. Go back for the hunt, the game will all be gone.

Out west you are talking about distances of hundreds of yards, where you can be seen from one ridge to another, wearing necessary hunter orange and smelling like a carnivore because you are a meat eater. consider the fact that in Utah and Idaho, where I have hunted, hunting success runs typically from 10/25% assuming a good year with lots of game.

You are also restricted on what you can hunt according to area and the dictates of the fish and game people. Areas that are low in animal numbers are restricted. Only areas that meet guidelines are open to hunting. In many cases you have to apply for a specific license by draws, paying extra for the opportunity.

It isn't that easy. You should also know that the money spent for licenses and draws also pays for the game management done during the year. As I said previously, hunters pay more and do more than any other group to fund the care of wildlife.

Anonymous

Quote from: "stromboli"I read the 2nd amendment- it doesn't say assault rifle anywhere, trust me. Assault rifles are not the best choice for hunting weapons. Making the claim that they are hunting weapons is frankly a weak one.
You are ver incorrect in this Stromboli.  It may not mention "assault" rifles by name, but it does.

"A well regulated militia, neccessarry for a free state, the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed."

Lets break this down.  What constitutes a well regulated militia?  People that own firearms that they can use to defend themselves, family, land, and country in the event of an attack on your person or freedoms.  In this day in age the best thing to use would be the AR-15 and like weapons.  The constitution does not grant rights, it protects the natural rights you have a human being, take away the second amendment and the rest are soon to follow.  
What does infringment mean?  

inĀ·fringe  
/in?frinj/
Verb
1.Actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.): "infringe a copyright".
2.Act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on: "infringe on his privacy".

Look at the bolded definition.  They are limiting our rights to own certain guns.  Now don't go trying to make that same cockamamy argument "So why don't you just buy a tank".  I don't want one, nor do I want to be freely able to own a machine gun.  I think we have certain laws that very good that  need to be enforced.  I do however want the ability to protect my family.  If you don't want a gun, fine don't buy one, I however will own every gun that I deem suitable for me.

Also, this crap isn't about trying to limit what we can have, it's Feinstein once again testing the waters to see just how far she can go until she can get rid of all guns.  Don't believe me?

[youtubehd:26xwmjhj]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-b45FdDN3s[/youtubehd:26xwmjhj]

stromboli

Quote from: "asshat"
Quote from: "stromboli"I read the 2nd amendment- it doesn't say assault rifle anywhere, trust me. Assault rifles are not the best choice for hunting weapons. Making the claim that they are hunting weapons is frankly a weak one.
You are ver incorrect in this Stromboli.  It may not mention "assault" rifles by name, but it does.

"A well regulated militia, neccessarry for a free state, the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed."

Lets break this down.  What constitutes a well regulated militia?  People that own firearms that they can use to defend themselves, family, land, and country in the event of an attack on your person or freedoms.  In this day in age the best thing to use would be the AR-15 and like weapons.  The constitution does not grant rights, it protects the natural rights you have a human being, take away the second amendment and the rest are soon to follow.  
What does infringment mean?  

inĀ·fringe  
/in?frinj/
Verb
1.Actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.): "infringe a copyright".
2.Act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on: "infringe on his privacy".

Look at the bolded definition.  They are limiting our rights to own certain guns.  Now don't go trying to make that same cockamamy argument "So why don't you just buy a tank".  I don't want one, nor do I want to be freely able to own a machine gun.  I think we have certain laws that very good that  need to be enforced.  I do however want the ability to protect my family.  If you don't want a gun, fine don't buy one, I however will own every gun that I deem suitable for me.

Also, this crap isn't about trying to limit what we can have, it's Feinstein once again testing the waters to see just how far she can go until she can get rid of all guns.  Don't believe me?

[youtubehd:2oxie16f]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-b45FdDN3s[/youtubehd:2oxie16f]

Right. but the obvious argument is that the 2nd amendment was written when firearms were loaded by the muzzle and were good for two (2) shots a minute, assuming you knew what you are doing. And by the way, we have militias, and we used to have more of them. remember the Brady Bill? Everything that is happening now happened previously. But single ownership by an individual does not constitute a militia. And to answer a previous point I reiterate- you can hunt an animal with an assault rifle. But that is not its designed use, period.
You can also cut your lawn with a farm-size threshing machine, but that is not its designed purpose.
 You can protect your home with a shotgun and a variety of rifles. Firearms that can put out multiple rounds per second or minute raises the stigma of collateral damage. And an assault rifle's designed purpose is the killing of humans, not hunting.

If you want to have an assault rifle, form a militia and conform to the rules therein. The bigger point is that we
 need to address the problem with a complete approach. Empower the ATF to do sufficient background checks of dealers and have a consistent, across the board method of checking not only the criminal histories of potential owners and their mental health history. I don't give machetes to my grand kids to play with, we shouldn't allow  firearms in the hands of dangerous people.

Personally, I don't care if qualified people own assault rifles. Have fun. But we seriously need a way to keep them out of the hands of dangerous people.

buttfinger

"Killing of humans"
Bullshit.  Pure and simple.  You claim by fiat that HUMANS are the only intentional target.  This is simply not the case.  Automatic weapons are the only gun that you have any merit with this argument for.  And yes, an armed populace IS a militia: the best kind of militia.  i would LOVE to see someone try to rob the local gas station, as the local populace will (and has) simply pull several guns on the perpetrator.