Sarah Palin to be Keynote NRA Speaker

[LAGC]

CHARLOTTE, N.C., Feb. 26 (UPI) -- The National Rifle Association said former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin will make the keynote speech at the group's annual meeting in Charlotte, N.C.

NRA Executive Director Wayne LaPierre said in a statement his group was proud to have the former Republican vice presidential nominee serve as the keynote speaker at May's annual meeting, The Hill reported Friday.

"Gov. Palin is one of the most requested speakers in America today," LaPierre said. "She's an outdoorsman, hunter and a steadfast supporter of our Second Amendment freedom. We are pleased to have a fellow NRA member speak at our 139th annual meeting in Charlotte this May."

Whenever I need to be reminded why I'm not a member of the NRA, they never fail to disappoint. Endorsing someone based on their gun stance alone, when they have no respect for the rest of our civil liberties, disgusting.

When will a truly non-partisan gun rights advocacy group rise up? We need it badly...

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[villager]

2. But of course she is.

n/t

[Arkana]

3. I wonder if she'll bring her prop...er, her little Trigger.

[elias49]

4. Or maybe a wolf she can poach. eom

[brewens]

5. I'd be interested to know if they allow people to pack their guns

to the meetin'?

[PavePusher]

9. Usually they do.

Why would they not?

[MichaelHarris]

6. it's a shame

your post will fall on deaf ears here. I am glad you posted it though, highly rec'ed!

[onehandle]

7. NRA = Just another propaganda wing of the Republican Party.

Don't forget to pay your membership fees, kiddies.

[Arkana]

8. They keep sending my dad membership offers.

The man owns so many guns he might be a survivalist--and he's also voted for every Dem since McGovern.

He laughs his ass off at them.

[onehandle]

14. Good for him.

No Democratic gun owner should come near that Republican group.

The few Blue Dogs that they endorse are about as liberal as Zell Miller.

[Arkana]

17. I think Howard Dean has an A rating from the NRA.

[onehandle]

20. That was a long time ago. Since then he expressed support for the assault rifle ban.

He would be NRA road kill these days.

[rhett o rick]

28. Where can one find these ratings? nt

[X_Digger]

32. For the archives, you have to be a member..

.. but some of them do get out..

Here's the scorecard from the 2006 election in WV

http://www.conservatives.org/NRA/2006NRAGenElecScore.html

(Notice all the (D) endorsements)

You can see the current scorecards for the 2010 cycle at http://www.nrapvf.org/Elections/Default.aspx

[spin]

37. 2006 ratings for congress can be found at:

http://www.votesmart.org/issue_rating_detail.php?r_id=3492

[rhett o rick]

51. Thank you. It is clear that the NRA loves republicans. Go figure. nt

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

54. They love politicians that support the 2nd Amendment.

[rhett o rick]

55. And your insinuation is that Democrats dont support the 2nd Amendment.

Why are you in DU if you support repubs?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

56. Huh. They back Democrats and Republicans that support the 2nd Amendment.

I'm not a member of the NRA, so I have no say in who they support. I hope that cleared it up for you.

[rhett o rick]

57. 129 Dem's are rated F by the NRA compared to only 2 Repubs. The NRA supports the Repub Party. nt

[oneshooter]

58. That is because

so many Dem's are still supporting the loosing gun control program. The NRA is a one item, and one item ONLY, organization. If the person supports anti Second Amendment laws, then the NRA will not support that person, it doesn't matter if they have a D,R. or I after their names.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[rhett o rick]

62. Supporting republicans only 98% of the time does not make them bi-partisan.

They supported Bush over Gore, Bush over Kerry, and McCain over Obama. They support Palin. How can you pretend they are bi-partisan?

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

65. They are a singe issue group.

Gore openly supported the AWB. He was very anti 2A.
Kerry supported the AWB and had an anti RKBA voting record. As a hunter, he gave a big fuck-you to other gun owners (the majority of gun owners).
Obama stated he supoprts the AWB and has an anti RKBA voting record.

Why the fuck would the largest pro RKBA group in America support them over their opponents.
The NRA picks the most 2A-freindly out of two opposing candidates and supports that one. Period.

To adress your earlier "proof" :eyes:...
I'm willing to bet 129 Dem's are anti-RKBA and only 2 Repubs are similarly anti-RKBA.
The NRA does not set candidates' policies, they only call them out on it.

[rhett o rick]

74. Swell rationalization. The fact is the NRA openly supports Republicans over Democrats. nt

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

77. Democrats openly support gun control moreso than Republicans.

This is a cause and effect relationship.

Cause: Most democrats adopt the DLC "gun control" rhetoric.
Effect: The NRA ends up endorsing more republicans.

This does not make the NRA a "republican group".

[PavePusher]

98. How deep can you stick your head in the sand? n/t

[Statistical]

122. Maybe if 98% of Democrats supported the 2nd amendment that woudl change.

The NRA simply looks at both candidates record and statements on the Right Keep and Bear Arms and gives them a grade.

Sometimes Democrat ranks higher than the Republican.
More often the Republican ranks higher.

However the letter grade is completely up to the politician. Democrats start supporting the 2nd and they will get better grades.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

79. Or one could say that Republican politicians, in general are more supportive of the 2nd Amendment.

Again though I'm not a member so I have no say in who they support.

[spin]

61. Remember these are the 2006 ratings, the latest I could find...

The Democratic Party is moving away from gun control and as it does, many more Democrats will get high ratings from the NRA.

Perhaps in 10 yeas no one will pay any attention to the NRA ratings as gun bans and draconian gun control will be off the table. By that time all states will have "shall issue" concealed carry if the current trend continues and even in cities like Chicago, people will be able to own firearms for self defense.

[rhett o rick]

63. It's just that I am surprised to find DU member that belong to the NRA. All the NRA

members that I know are rabid republicans.

[PavePusher]

67. "Everyone I know..."

is not a valid statistical argument.

[spin]

70. The NRA does a lot for the shooting sports ...

the political wing is called the NRA-ILA. That's the group you probably have problems with.

You can view the NRA programs at:
http://www.nra.org/programs.aspx

The NRA also publishes a monthly magazine which is filled with technical and historical articles on firearms which shooters finding interesting and informative.

Without the NRA we probably would not have many of the firearms rights that people of all political parties enjoy today. The NRA has proved to be a very effective political organization that to a great part is responsible to the spread of concealed carry laws across our country as well as "castle doctrine" laws. For a organization with only 4 million members they pack a lot of clout.

While it is true that most NRA members are Republican, a high percentage are people who left the Democratic Party because of the party's anti-gun views. When a person has thousands of dollars and thousands of hours invested in a sport and the government threatens to ban his firearms and restrict his right to own them, it's easy to see why the person would join a party who says they will defend RKBA. But history shows that Republicans are quick to sell out gun owners if they can sense a political advantage.

If the Democratic Party would finally drop it's failing policy to push extreme gun control, many gun owners would return to support our parties more important efforts.

[rhett o rick]

73. I appreciate your honesty (no sarcasm)

You point out that "many gun owners" are one issue voters. "If the Democratic Party would finally drop it's failing policy to push extreme gun control, many gun owners would return to support our parties more important efforts." What you are saying is that many gun owners have abandoned the Democratic Party because of gun control issues which apparently are more important than what you call "more important efforts". I would submit that these "many gun owners" have priority issues.

By the way, please give me an example of the Democratic Party pushing extreme gun controls. Do you mean the President is pushing extreme controls? Or the HOR? or the Senate? Which bills specifically? Or are you trying to blow NRA smoke up my ask?

[X_Digger]

80. H.R. 45 is one example. n/t

[spin]

84. The Democratic Party still has the assault weapons ban in its platform...

The official position

We recognize that the right to bear arms is an important part of the American tradition, and we will preserve Americans' Second Amendment right to own and use firearms. We believe that the right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation, but we know that what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne. We can work together to enact and enforce commonsense laws and improvements - like closing the gun show loophole, improving our background check system, and reinstating the assault weapons ban, so that guns do not fall into the hands of terrorists or criminals. Acting responsibly and with respect for differing views on this issue, we can both protect the constitutional right to bear arms and keep our communities and our children safe.
The Democratic Party platform (2008)

Some members of Obama's administration have made comments supporting further gun control measures. For example:

Attorney General Eric Holder was busy announcing the capture of more than 50 alleged members of the notorious Sinaloa Cartel yesterday when he unwittingly stepped into a larger debate about gun control.

Responding to a reporter's question on weapons' regulations, Holder said, "Well, as President Obama indicated during the campaign, there are just a few gun-related changes that we would like to make, and among them would be to reinstitute the ban on the sale of assault weapons. I think that will have a positive impact in Mexico, at a minimum."


http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/02/26/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry4831751.shtml

I know many gun owners and most of them own several handguns, rifles and shotguns. A good percentage have a much larger collection. One very popular item among shooters is "assault weapons". Almost every regular shooter I know owns a rifle that could qualify under a new ban as an assault weapon. (Oddly, I am an exception). Most also own semi-auto pistols with several high capacity magazines (the production of new high cap mags were banned during the last assault weapons ban but high cap mags manufactured before a certain cut off date were still available but very expensive.

So with such a large investment in a hobby which they enjoy and with the Democrats prior history of supporting extreme gun control laws and bans including gun confiscation in California, gun owners are wary of voting Democrats into office.

Gun Confiscation Starts In California

Y2KNEWSWIRE has confirmed with the California State Attorney General office:
Certain firearms are now under a confiscation order. This, also posted on a state-run web site. California residents must turn in their SKS rifles by 1/1/2000 -- precisely the Y2K rollover date -- or face criminal prosecution. Recently-enacted legislation mandates this confiscation, calling it a "buyback" program and offering to reimburse gun owners $230 per "relinquished" rifle.
http://www.mcsm.org/sksconfisc.html

And of course we have Nancy Pelosi and her comments on gun control:

Democrat House Speaker Nancy Pelosi dropped a verbal bombshell in the middle of an interview on Good Morning America April 7, and surprisingly, neither the press nor a majority of gun rights activists seemed to notice.
Responding to a question from ABC’s Robin Roberts, Pelosi said that while Congress apparently does not want to take anyone’s guns away, “We want them registered.”


Roberts: Under the Bush administration, you pretty much said the ball was in their court when it came to reinstating the ban. Now, it's a Democratic President, a Democratic House. So, is the ball in your court where this is concerned?
Pelosi: Yes, it is. And we are just going to have to work together to come to some resolution because the court, in the meantime, in recent months, the Supreme Court has ruled in a very- in a direction that gives more opportunity for people to have guns. We never denied that right. We don't want to take their guns away. We want them registered. We don’t want them crossing state lines..
http://www.examiner.com/x-4525-Seattle-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m4d8-Pelosi-made-it-official-to-ABC-We-want-registration

You can watch the interview for yourself at http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Books/story?id=7271110&page=1 Nancy's comments about gun registration are about 3/4 of the way through. Gun owners realize that registration leads to gun confiscation.

Gun owners also look at the record of other countries. Great Britain banned firearms and now have extreme rules on carrying knives.

Carrying Knives in Public

The CJA 1988 mainly relates to carrying knives in public places, Section 139 being the most important.

"It is an offence for any person, without lawful authority or good reason, to have with him in a public place, any article which has a blade or is sharply pointed except for a folding pocket-knife which has a cutting edge to its blade not exceeding 3 inches."

***snip***

A Crown Court case (Harris v DPP), ruled (case law). A lock knife for all legal purposes, is the same as a fixed blade knife. A folding pocket knife must be readily foldable at all times. If it has a mechanism that prevents folding, it's a lock knife (or for legal purposes, a fixed blade) The Court of Appeal (REGINA - v - DESMOND GARCIA DEEGAN 1998) upheld the Harris ruling stating that "folding was held to mean non-locking". No leave to appeal was granted.
http://www.goxplore.net/guides/Knife_law_%28UK%29

In addition to my gun collection I also own a knife collection. All of the folding knives I own lock when open. I also usually carry a fixed blade knife with a blade length of 4". It's easy for me to see where a nanny state that bans firearms goes next. The majority of male shooters I know also carry a locking folder. They are extremely useful for everyday tasks but we don't carry them as weapons, just tools.

Unless you know a lot of gun owners and participate in shooting on a regular basis, you will have a hard time understanding the enjoyment they gain from their sport. My daughter and son in law are sky divers and I can't understand why anyone would jump out of a perfectly good aircraft. If a political party were to suggest laws that would limit sky diving to round parachutes



rather than the more modern "square" chutes



they would immediately change to another party and it would be a long time before they came back.

I, myself, was a loyal Democrat for many years through Bill Clinton's first term, but then I started voting mainly Republican (If the candidate had a better NRA record than the opposing Democrat). The reason was at the the time Democrats were very anti-gun and were needlessly threatening my hobby and my right to self defense. I changed my mind after Bush the Junior took office. This idiot pissed me off and McCain appeared to be only a lukewarm supporter of gun rights and a burned out old fart who really didn't want the job. So I went back to my roots and voted for hope and change.

And so far Obama hasn't let me down.

Among the many groups that opposed Barack Obama's presidential race, few were more certain or vehement than gun rights organizations. "Barack Obama would be the most anti-gun president in American history," the National Rifle Association announced. "Obama is a committed anti-gunner," warned Gun Owners of America.

So it's no stunner that after a year in office, the president is getting hammered by people who have no use for his policy on firearms. The surprise is that the people attacking him are those who favor gun control, not those who oppose it.

Obama's record on this issue has been largely overlooked—except by the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, which recently issued a report card flunking him on all seven issues it deems important. Said President Paul Helmke, "If I had been told, in the days before Barack Obama's inauguration, that his record on gun violence prevention would be this poor, I would not have believed it."

***snip***

So he has proposed nothing in the way of new federal restrictions on firearms. Even the "assault weapons" ban signed by President Clinton—and allowed to expire in 2004—has no visible place on his agenda.

Not only that, he's approved changes that should gladden the hearts of gun-rights supporters, a group that includes me. He signed a law permitting guns to be taken into national parks. He signed another allowing guns as checked baggage on Amtrak. He acted to preserve an existing law limiting the use of government information on firearms it has traced.

***snip***

Opponents of gun control should not rely on Obama's innermost sentiments on the subject. He obviously doesn't cherish the right to keep and bear arms. But for those who favor Second Amendment rights, here's the nice thing about having such a canny politician in the White House: He doesn't have to.
http://reason.com/archives/2010/02/15/obama-spurns-gun-control

You ask for an example of how the Democratic Party is pushing extreme gun control. Well currently they are not.

I support some of the ideas in the party platform on gun control. I would like to see the NICS background check improved and also become a requirement for ALL firearms sales which would eliminate the "gun show loophole". But I do oppose another assault weapons ban which to me is just a "feel good" effort. I also disagree with the statement "but we know that what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne". The gun ban in Chicago is a miserable failure, what's needed is better and more efficient pro active police department that treats gangs as terrorists (which they are). Blaming the lack of draconian firearm laws in other areas of Illinois and the rest of the country is merely the efforts of the petty tyrant, Major Daley, to apply makeup to his failures. A citizen in Cheyenne should enjoy the same rights as a citizen in Chicago. This country is based on equal rights not certain rights for big city dwellers and different rights for those who live in the country and other smaller cities.

I support the NRA because as I have said they do a lot of good for the shooting sports and for RKBA. I do find much of the propaganda generated by the NRA_ILA offensive and misleading. Therefore, I contribute my yearly membership dues and ignore their fund driving efforts which exaggerate the threat Obama presents. I file their mail in file 13 and ignore their telephone calls.

I do examine their ratings on politicians running for state or congressional seats and refuse to vote for those who get low ratings. Fortunately, the Democrats in my area usually get A ratings.

[rhett o rick]

85. Yes that's why I totally understand that the NRA is a republican organization.

No matter how you rationalize it, they are a republican organization. They support only (98%) republicans.

By the way, I support a ban on assault weapons. There should be a line and I believe assault weapons are on the same side of the line as rocket launchers.

[X_Digger]

87. 98% you say? Balderdash..

Here are the numbers for Texas in 2008..

98 Republicans endorsed, 41 Democrats endorsed

Of the NRA endorsements in Texas for 2008, 29.5% of the endorsements were for Democrats, 70.5% were for Republicans.

Texas was negligibly red, let's look at a blue state like West Virginia in 2008.

75 Democrats and 40 Republicans got the nod- that's 65% D, 35% R.

It's the same in many other states- the NRA endorses whoever has a strong stance for the second amendment. In the latest election cycle, there were more Democrats endorsed than in any previous election.

Still want to stick with your 98%?

[rhett o rick]

92. Of course. Actually I bet it's higher. You see even when the NRA gives a Democrat

an A grade, I am will to bet that when that Democrat runs against a republican, the NRA will back the republican. Because no matter how gun friendly a Democrat is, there is a more gun friendly republican.

Just curious what you think the percentage breakdown is in the NRA membership of republicans verse Democrats?

[X_Digger]

94. Arrgh.. Let me do some research tomorrow..

I only gave you the breakdowns by numbers..

Many many many of those (D) endorsements were over lower rated (R) candidates.

I still have the spreadsheet open, let me list just a few before I hit the hay..

In Texas' District 17, they endorsed Chet Edwards (D)(A rated) over (R) Rob Curnock (AQ rated) - Q being 'based on questionaire'

District 22 - Nick Lampson (D) (A rated) over Pete Olson (R) (AQ rated)

[PavePusher]

95. I think you are trying to be rational...

to a brick wall. But your efforts are noted and appreciated.

[rhett o rick]

102. That was uncalled for. nt

[PavePusher]

118. I do not concede that is so...

but I will aknowledge the possibility.

But you are the one refusing to accept the evidence presented to you. Hard facts that completely refute your claims and accusations. I'm not sure how else to describe such behavior.

[X_Digger]

96. Here's 2008, Some Texas D's endorsed over R's

In TX: (Bold denotes endorsement)
US House

District 17
(D) *CHET EDWARDS A
(R) ROB CURNOCK AQ

District 27
(R) WILLIE VADEN AQ
(D) *SOLOMON ORTIZ A

District 29
(R) ERIC STORY AQ
(D) *GENE GREEN A

District 22
(R) PETE OLSON AQ
(D) *NICK LAMPSON A

District 28
(R) JIM FISH A-
(D) *HENRY CUELLAR A

State House

District 1
(R) GEORGE LAVENDER A
(D) *STEPHEN FROST A+

District 3
(R) KIRBY HOLLINGSWORTH A
(D) *MARK HOMER A+

District 11
(R) BRIAN WALKER A
(D) *CHUCK HOPSON A+

District 33
(R) RAUL TORRES A
(D) *SOLOMON ORTIZ, JR. A

District 45
(R) MATT YOUNG A
(D) *PATRICK ROSE A+

District 75
(R) CHARLIE GARZA ?
(D) *CHENTE QUINTANILLA A

District 85
(R) ISAAC CASTRO A
(D) *JOE HEFLIN A

District 93
(R) BILL BURCH A
(D) *PAULA PIERSON A

District 107
(R) BILL KEFFER A
(D) *ALLEN VAUGHT A

District 117
(R) JOHN GARZA ?
(D) *DAVID LEIBOWITZ A


I'm tired of copy / pasting.. that should be enough to show that your assertions are baseless. The NRA-PVF has a set of rules that they use when determining endorsement.

1. Candidate's voting record for supporting the second amendment.
2. If the candidate is new and has no voting record, then use the answers to the questionnaire.
3. If two candidates are of equal grade, favor the incumbent, as they're likely to have more political power via committee appointments, etc.

[rhett o rick]

99. Thank you for the data. I am surprised. But I do note that when the Democrat

is chosen, in most cases the rating was tied.

Thanks for taking the time to straighten me out.

[X_Digger]

101. A v AQ is usually incumbent (A) v new guy (AQ)

Texas is nominally red, the ones in WV are even more D over R. (No time to paste them now.)

[TheWraith]

117. The percentage breakdown for 2008 was about 75/25 R to D. nt

[spin]

132. The membership percentage is probably highly Republican ...

because the Democratic Party has only recently slowed its campaign against firearms.

Gun owners have a hard time trusting Democrats and will for a long time. Especially when they see Democrats still resisting RKBA as they are in Virginia.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x298209

[spin]

90. A semi-auto rifle is a semi-auto rifle ...

just because it is black and evil looking doesn't make one rifle any more deadly than another that has a wood stock and looks like a hunting rifle.

It might be worth your time to watch this video by a police officer on The Truth about "Assault Weapons":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YjM9fcEzSJ0

Or you can just continue on with your preconceived ideas about the NRA, assault weapons and rocket launchers.

[rhett o rick]

91. I watched the video. I am fully aware of the difference between a hunting rifle

and an assault rifle. The officer said that it was cosmetic. Yes, it is cosmetic for a purpose. Hunters dont need the cosmetics of an assault rifle. The cosmetics are to sell the assault rifles to those that think they are more effective for self protection. The cosmetics is for selling the weapons to those that want the guns for other than hunting. And Shotgun News will sell you parts to make semi-automatics into fully automatics. And parts to make a silencer. Gun nuts think it is funny how easy it is to make your m-16 fully auto.

I have hunted as my father and grandfather. None of us thought it was necessary or even wise to use a semi-automatic weapon. A good hunter only needs a single shot, not a spray.

I am sure you agree that a line has to be drawn regarding legal weapons and illegal weapons. We just disagree on where that line is drawn.

[PavePusher]

93. Some of us don't agree with a "line".

And it's more like ergonomics, not cosmetics. The 'pistol grip' makes the rifle more comfortable to hold and easier to aim properly. Don't bring out the old "spray-fire from the hip" claim, it's patently false. Find someone who owns an AR rifle and hold it in the "hip shooting" position. You'll have to break your wrist to use the grip and still work the trigger.

Please post a link or cite to where S/N will sell full-auto conversions. I don't think you can.

What is wrong with silencers (the accurate term is 'suppressor')? They are a safety device to protect the shooters hearing and are unConstitutionally taxed at $200 apiece, even if you build your own.

Do you actually know hunters who "spray" their prey? Somehow, I doubt you do. There is nothing wrong with hunting with a semi-auto. Unless, of course, you have some fact to bring to the discussion, instead of mere opinion.

[spin]

97. Nope, they are not your granddad's hunting rifle but ...

AR platform rifles are becoming very popular with hunters.

Check out this thread on a hunting forum:

http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=10&f=23&t=605991

Or this article by Dick Metcalf:

Sporting ARs
Stoner's brilliant battle design is following tradition by heading into the woods.

Virtually every type of centerfire sporting rifle in existence started off as a military weapon. The classic lever-action deer gun, long the most popular type of hunting rifle in America, began as the Henry Rifle of the Civil War era, designed to bring rapid fire against the enemy. The lever-action was succeeded in universal popularity by the bolt-action--the standard hunting rifle of today--which we owe to Paul Mauser's classic battle-rifle design.

***snip***

Now another rifle of military origin is moving rapidly into prominence in the hunting and sport shooting world: the AR15 .223 and AR10 .308. And, like its predecessors, the AR platform is meeting resistance, even outright opposition, from many hunters who are personally wedded to earlier gun designs. No surprise there; when the lever action was first used for hunting, traditionalists, whose idea of a "real" hunting gun was a single-shot muzzleloader, distained the need for a repeat-fire tool.

***snip***

The AR in particular is a superb hunting design, due primarily to its lightweight synthetic and corrosion-resistant alloy construction. And, it's surprisingly accurate, due primarily to the fact it's an "assembled" gun rather than a "fitted" gun. Its major components essentially snap together. Unlike a traditional bolt-action rifle, which generally requires close-tolerance, hand-work receiver/barrel mating and precise bedding into the stock for maximum accuracy and consistency, a hunting-grade (or even competition-grade) AR can readily be assembled from modular components literally on a kitchen table, by anybody with a modicum of ability to use relatively simple hand tools. Likewise, a service-grade "standard" AR15 can readily be brought up to minute-of-angle performance by selective replacement of key modular elements with match-grade parts. And, once tuned, an AR stays that way, due to the fact that its entirely nonorganic components (nonwood) are not susceptible to environmental distortion (warpage or swelling). All an AR really needs is a quality barrel to shoot as well as the best hunting rifle you can buy.

Hunting versions of the AR design, in a wide variety of chamberings, are currently offered by several manufacturers. One of the early leaders in AR hunting rifle and sport configurations has been ArmaLite, which offers both lightweight and heavy-barrel configurations in .223 (M-12A series) for long-range varmint and predator hunting, .308-chambered versions (AR-10 series) for deer hunting and competition and even a super-accurate .300 Remington Short-Action Ultra Mag (AR-10T Ultra), which is as good an elk, moose or general heavy game chambering as you can get.

Other manufacturers offer complete AR rifles and AR upper receivers chambered for such excellent hunting cartridges as the 6.8mm Remington SPC, up to big-bore dangerous-game chamberings such as the .458 SOCOM or .500 Beowulf.

***snip***

The AR platform is a hunting rifle, and anyone who says differently simply doesn't know history.


http://www.shootingtimes.com/longgun_reviews/ar15zum_030207/

I heard hunters argue about using a semi-auto rifle or a bolt action rifle for hunting. Both sides make good points.

Personally, if I decide to try hunting, I will use my 6.5X55 Swedish Mauser which I bought recently for $250 rather than invest in an expensive AR. But that's just me. I also prefer to use a revolver for self defense and target shooting although I do own a Ruger semi-auto .22 target pistol and a S&W Model 41 .22 target pistol and usually use one of them for warm up on the target range. I then shift to one of several revolvers I own in 38/357, 45 ACP or .44 mag for the remainder of the target session.

My favorite revolver for target shooting is a S&W 686 Powerport with a 6" barrel.



I also own several Colt .45 autos including a Colt Gold Cup National Match.


My argument is that many hunters see advantages to the AR platform over the more conventional hunting rifles. While I might not chose to use one, I can see no reason to deny their use to other hunters based on my views of traditional hunting. If a hunter feels he is more comfortable with an AR type rifle, that confidence could easily result in cleaner kills and less suffering for the game.

"This type of rifle is winning more and more acceptance for a number of reasons, but chief among them, I believe, are their accuracy and their adaptability," says B.J. Blick of Rock River Arms, an Illinois-based manufacturer that was among the pioneers in the process of convincing sporting shooters that such firearms were just the ticket. "The accuracy potential of most models nowadays is as good as it gets. Also, you've got the advantage of multiple shots, which is very important to predator and varmint hunters, and even deer hunters.

"Finally, these guns are so adaptable. There are so many interchangeable parts and accessories that a shooter can literally fine-tune the gun exactly the way he wants it. With traditional firearms, if you want something different, you buy another gun."

B.J. Blick of Rock River Arms says the adaptability of AR style rifles are beneficial.
http://sports.espn.go.com/outdoors/hunting/news/story?id=4843094

[Euromutt]

109. That Blick guy needs to learn some trigger discipline

You'd think an employee of a firearms manufacturing company would know better.

[spin]

131. Damn, I missed that. Good catch. (n/t)

[PavePusher]

100. All of your 'hunting rifles" were derived directly from military designs...

and were, at one time, 'assault rifles' (I use your inaccurate terminology).

What now?

[rhett o rick]

103. I appreciate your honest attempt at civility. I should know not to venture into "GUNS".

Werent the M-16 and AR-14 designed specifically to kill humans? How about the Mac-10? Arent they sold to specifically kill humans? These guns are a long way away from anything needed for hunting. They appeal to those that want to kill humans or want the ability to possibly kill humans.

[X_Digger]

104. The AR-15 is the civilian (semi-automatic as opposed to full auto) variant of the M-16..

.. all guns were originally designed as military arms.

Lever action rifles are based on the henry repeating rifle used in the civil war. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_rifle

Most bolt action rifles are based on the Mauser. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mauser_rifle

Semi-automatic hunting rifles like the the Ruger Mini 14 are based on the M1 Garand - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_garand

Even Remington's Model 750/7400 was originally based on a design by John Moses Browning

Thing is.. the qualities that make a particular firearm good for war make them also good for hunting (highly accurate, scratch resistant finishes, collapsible stocks, interchangeable parts for different calibers and different game.)

Remington, among other manufacturers is taking the next logical step, or one could say, the same step with newer technology.



The Remington R-25 takes the same technology used in the AR-15/AR-10 and applies it to hunting rifles.

Same base gun as this..



Now all of this avoids something that I think you assumed. The second amendment doesn't mention hunting. Hunting is just one of the possible reasons that a person may own a particular gun. Only 20% of gun owners hunts. The majority of guns are owned for reasons other than hunting.

[rhett o rick]

106. I said AR-14 not AR-15. The AR-14 and many of these weapons are designed to kill no

check that, they are designed to do as much tissue damage in humans as possible. The AR-14 does not need to be available for personal use. As the m-16, AK-47, Mac 10, etc. These guns are fine for war were we want to damage human tissue, (good grief did I say that?), but we dont need them on the streets.

And plez dont give me that freedom bullshit. There are limits on each and every freedom we have and there needs to be reasonable limits on gun freedoms.

[PavePusher]

107. I googled 'AR-14' and this is the closest to a firearm with that designation:

http://halofanon.wikia.com/wiki/AR-14_DEW_Assault_Rifle


So, you are either talking about a wholly fictional weapon, or you are confused on your terminology.

Please, elucidate.

[rhett o rick]

108. I dont have a clue what elucidate means, but I will admit that maybe I was mistaken.

i was blabbering from memory and I thought it was the AR-14 that proceeded the m-16. But seems it was the AR-15. I do apologize. My motive in DU is to argue to learn. And if someone proves me full of shit, I will accept it.

[oneshooter]

110. Maybe you were thinking of the M-14

Which was the predecessor of the M-16. The AR-15 is the civilian legal version of the M-16 Military rifle. The M-14 was also a full auto (.308 Winchester) and the civilian legal version is the M1a1, also in 308.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[TheWraith]

130. And in any event, still wrong.

The M14 was not "designed to produce as much tissue damage in humans as possible." That's not even a function of the gun, it's a function of the bullet, and military rounds are specifically prohibited from using the designs which produce the most tissue damage. The gun itself is irrelevant to the design of the bullet.

[PavePusher]

112. No problem, we all make mistakes here on occasion.

And the terminology can be tricky and confusing. But, as in any technical field, the devil is, literally, in the details.

Google "shoulder thing that goes up" for an example of why this is important.

Glad you're here to learn, so am I. Most of us are. The more we share, the more we know.

[dashrif]

113. Holy

F... AR-14 DEW (Directed Energy Weapon) Assault Rifle...... Master Chief slide me a mag I'm out


Good eyes

[X_Digger]

111. I see downthread you recognized the AR-14/5 flip..

Actually, the M-16 preceded the AR-15 though. Full auto came first, for the military, then the civilian semi-auto, not the other way around.

The AR-15 makes a great 'varmint' gun, for hunting small game at a distance (rabbits, prarie dogs, ground hogs.) The normal round it's chambered in is too small to hunt deer.

Guns that are commonly used to hunt deer and larger game? Are much much more powerful.

Here's a comparison picture I made for someone who didn't know the difference between various rifle calibers.



The middle round, 243, is about the smallest round that most hunters would use for anything larger than a ground hog (woodchuck / whistle-pig).

Here's a much larger chart of different rifle ammunition. Notice how far to the left the 223 is (denoted as #16).



A rifle's lethality isn't really based on it's design / cosmetics / color. It's about caliber.

As I mentioned upthread, _all_ rifles were originally designed to kill people in war. So I'm not understanding your aversion to certain guns based on what they were originally designed to do.

Can you clarify what characteristic makes a rifle okay or verbotten?

[rhett o rick]

114. I am not an expert but old and think the AR-15 preceeded the M-16

"ArmaLite sold its rights to the AR-10 and AR-15 to Colt in 1959. Colt marketed the AR-15 rifle to various military services around the world, including the U.S. Navy, Air Force, Army, and Marine Corps. The AR-15 was eventually adopted by the United States military under the designation M16. However, Colt continued to use the AR-15 trademark for its semi-automatic variants (AR-15, AR-15A2) which were marketed to civilian and law-enforcement customers.

[PavePusher]

115. rhett o rick is correct...

The military designation of 'M-16' came after the Stoner/Colt-developement label of AR-15.

See, we're all larnin' sumpin. :toast:

[X_Digger]

128. Woops! I thought stoner hadn't actually sold any AR-15's pre-M-16

My bad!

[Euromutt]

116. Actually, military small arms aren't specifically designed to kill

Nor to inflict maximum physical trauma in humans; what they are designed to do is inflict sufficient tissue damage to render the casualty hors de combat (i.e. physically incapable of participating in armed hostilities). Post-WWII infantry rifles fire rounds that are far less powerful than the rounds fired by rifles (and machine guns) in WWI and WWII.

Most of international humanitarian law (such as the various Conventions of The Hague and Geneva http://www.icrc.org/ihl) is based on a implicit premise that wars are conflicts between governments and that individual soldiers, as agents of their respective states, are not responsible for their governments' actions, and thus do not need to be harmed any more than required by military necessity. In more straightforward terms, since wounding a guy is generally sufficient to put a guy out of action, you don't need to actively seek to kill him. Hence mutual agreements not to use expanding bullets (Declaration IV, 3 of The Hague, 28-Jul-1899), explosive projectiles under 400 grams (Declaration of St. Petersburg, 29-Nov/11-Dec-1868), and indeed the common trend toward developing infantry weapons firing lighter-powered rounds.

Both the 7.62x51mm and 5.56x45mm NATO rounds (used in the M14 and M16, resp.) were actually developed from hunting cartridges, the .308 Winchester and the .222 Remington. Winchester created the .308 in 1952 as a cartridge for smaller deer-sized game like whitetail and pronghorn, while the .222 Remington was introduced in 1950 as a varminting cartridge (e.g. for coyotes, raccoons, prairie dogs, etc.). It's hard to argue that something that's designed to kill a whitetail or coyote, provided you're using soft points or hollow points, is intended "to do as much tissue damage in humans as possible" and certainly not when using FMJ rounds.

As the m-16, AK-47, Mac 10, etc. <...> we dont need them on the streets.

I'm fairly certain it's illegal to discharge a firearm from, along or across a public road, at least in this state (Washington), so they're not going to be "on the streets." Besides, the examples you cite are all capable of automatic fire, which means they are already regulated under the National Firearms Act of 1934, and are not "assault weapons" in the sense of the 1994-2004 ban. So-called "assault weapons" are by definition semi-auto-only. (Don't feel bad; the private gun ownership prohibition lobby has made a deliberate effort to create the misapprehension that so-called "assault weapons" are capable of automatic fire, in which they have been enthusiastically helped by the sensationalist news media, and many, many, people have been successfully misled.)

Look, the AR platform is extremely popular not in the least place because its modularity makes it extremely versatile. You can have a single AR-15 lower receiver, and mount a variety of different uppers on it; e.g. you can have a .22LR upper for plinking, a "field grade" .223 upper for varminting, a "match grade" .223 upper for competition target shooting, a 6.8mm SPC or 7.62x39mm R upper for whitetail. It's cheaper than buying three different Rugers (a 10/22, a Mini-14 and a Mini-30), and probably more accurate on all counts too. Similarly, with an "AR-25," you can have a variety of uppers suited to larger deer, elk, and other big game, and competition shooting.

It's not as if there aren't plenty of semi-automatic hunting rifles around anyway, such as the Browning BAR (http://www.browning.com/products/catalog/family.asp?webflag_=002B&catalog_=B), the Remington 750 Woodsmaster (http://www.remington.com/product-families/firearms/centerfire-families/autoloading-model-750.aspx), the Benelli R1 (http://www.benelliusa.com/rifles/benelli_r1_rifle.php) to name a few. And hell, WWII vets used Garands to hunt deer after the war. It's not the technology in of itself that's controversial, and you can get 5-round AR mags to comply with state hunting laws. So really, the only objectionable points are the pistol grip, the absence of wood in the furniture, and to some extent that the basic design is still in use as a military weapon (though that was true of Springfield M1903s and M1 Garands at the time, too).

[PavePusher]

105. Please offer some proof for your assertions.

All else is mere vanity.

[Statistical]

124. One M-16 are highly regulated ...

Two the AR-15 is semi-auto. One trigger pull = one bullet. It fires a cartridge that is far less lethal than those used by larger caliber hunting rifles.

Lastly the 2nd doesn't have jack-shit to do with hunting. Absolutely nothing. Gun owners don't need to justify a need anymore than you need to justify a need to get aproval from govt to start a blog. 99% of the stuff on youtube is pointless but the govt still shouldn't ban it.

[TheWraith]

120. Much of what you believe is lies and misinformation.

You cannot buy parts to turn a semi-automatic into a fully automatic weapon. Not only is that extremely illegal, guns have to be specifically designed to make that impossible in order to be legal to sell in the US. The urban legend that you can go into gun magazines and find parts to turn any rifle into a machine gun is right up there with the Neimann Marcus cookie recipe for bullshit stories that people think are true.

Likewise, to manufacture a silencer requires a huge amount of paperwork from the ATF, as well as a $200 tax stamp. This is not something you get in a kit.

By the way, you know that silencers were (and are) originally designed for hunting and target shooting? So that you don't spook the rest of the game, and to minimize the need for ear protection.

Furthermore, the insistence that no hunter needs a semi-automatic weapon to hunt is rather like the insistence that nobody needs fuel injection in order to drive a car. Okay, it may not be necessary, but a few curmudgeons don't get to decide what's okay for everyone else to own. Besides which, most gun owners (myself included) don't hunt.

[TheWraith]

119. Okay, how are "assault weapons" the same as rocket launchers?

You are probably confusing "assault weapons" with fully automatic weapons. The "assault weapons" that people talk about banning are not fully automatic, have never been fully automatic, and cannot be made fully automatic. They shoot one bullet per trigger pull like every other old-fashioned looking gun. The only difference is they look modern, which some people find scary. And the "Assault Weapons Ban" in fact did NOT ban modern looking rifles, just certain features such as bayonet lugs and folding stocks--which have nothing to do with the functionality of the rifle.

[Euromutt]

126. Only in military lingo

In military lingo, an "assault weapon" is an infantry weapon designed to take out enemy fortifications; we're talking stuff like bangalore torpedoes, satchel charges, flamethrowers, and yes, rocket launchers.

According to the Marine Corps, this is an assault weapon:



That's the Mk. 153 Shoulder-launched Multi-purpose Assault Weapon, or SMAW for short.

Obviously, almost all such assault weapons are "destructive devices" under the NFA of 1934, and consequently tightly regulated. A piddling semi-auto-only rifle chambered for a varmint cartridge doesn't even come close.

[benEzra]

127. Actually, *AUTOMATIC WEAPONS* are on the same side of the line as rocket launchers.

The tightly controlled, NFA Title 2 side, same as bombs and howitzers.

Non-automatic, small- and intermediate-caliber CIVILIAN rifles with modern styling, on the other hand, are on the same side of the line as any other non-automatic civilian rifle, the NFA Title 1 side.

You do know that "assault weapon" is scare-speak for the latter, not the former, yes? You're talking about the most popular civilian centerfire rifles in America, not military hardware.

[Statistical]

123. The antis will never give up.

Maybe gun bans will be off the table but they will constantly be trying to push the limit on what is infringement.

Is a $500 annual license infringement? I think so but NYC say it isn't.
Is a ban on magazines >10 rounds infringement? I think so but CA say it isn't.
Is making a weapon illegal forever if registration lapses even one day? I think so but Chicago says it isn't.

The antis will never ever give up. They may become less effective or even go semi-dormant but they won't stop.

[X_Digger]

10. Umm... what you said.. that _is_ the definition of non-partisan.

"Endorsing someone based on their gun stance alone"

^ That is just about the definition of non-partisan.

Just saying.

[LAGC]

86. Surely they could find a pro-gun Democrat to deliver the key-note speech once in awhile?

That's the big turn-off I see with them. I like the work they do, by and large, but their leadership seems entirely too right-wing oriented for my tastes, as evident by the company they seek. Granted, this may never change if pro-gun Dems don't join up and vote for new leadership, but I just have a hard time stomaching donating to a cause that promotes so many evil Repubs based on their gun-stance alone.

Hopefully others are right, and as more Democrats come around on the gun issue the NRA's leadership will reflect this. Still, they could nominate a pro-gun Dem to keynote their speeches once in awhile...

[X_Digger]

88. Bill Richardson turned them down a couple of years ago, iirc.

See my post just above this one- in 2008, in some states, they endorsed more (D)'s than (R)'s, and more (D)'s than ever. Not that the NRA changed, but that more (D)'s took strong stances on protecting the second amendment.

[LAGC]

89. Well, that is a good sign.

Hopefully the trend continues, and the very issue is wrested from right-wing hands...

[Me.]

11. How Much Are They Paying Her?

[PavePusher]

12. "Endorsing someone based on their gun stance alone..."

Umm, I think you are confused on the focus of the NRA.

They are solely devoted to protecting the Rights of the Citizenry under the Second Amendment.

The one Right the ACLU won't touch with red-hot tongs.

Deal with it.

[villager]

18. Um, they aren't "solely" devoted to so-called 2nd Amendment issues

with their recent attacks on health care serving as the most recent reminders of their over-arching rightwing agenda.

Deal with it.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

21. Do you have a link?

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

24. What are you talking about?

[MichaelHarris]

25. from your gungion companion above

"the NRA.

They are solely devoted to protecting the Rights of the Citizenry under the Second Amendment.

The one Right the ACLU won't touch with red-hot tongs.

Deal with it."

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

26. What does that have to do with a link about the NRA attacking health care?

[friendly_iconoclast]

38. Second that. Let's have that link, please.

Or is this the "man with a rifle in Moscow, Idaho" redux?

[X_Digger]

30. That's a fourth amendment case, not a second.

Don't you even read the stuff you actually post?

Here's the proper link- http://www.wwl.com/ACLU-files-suit-over-gun-rights/4728222

The suit says the district attorney's office declined to prosecute Houston but has refused to return his .40 caliber firearm.

Houston claims Orleans Parish District Attorney Leon Cannizzaro has instituted a policy that firearms seized during arrests will not be returned to their owners.

The ACLU says that policy violates Houston's constitutional rights.

Cannizzaro says his office decides on a "case by case basis'' whether to return confiscated guns.

[slackmaster]

59. That's a local yokel ACLU. The national ACLU does not support gun rights.

http://www.aclu.org/blog/organization-news-and-highlights/heller-decision-and-second-amendment

[MichaelHarris]

22. really?

you are seriously information challenged.

"ACLU files suit over gun rights


Jay Vise Reporting
A New Orleans man is suing the city and its district attorney for refusing to give back a gun that police seized when he was arrested on drug and firearms charges. The American Civil Liberties Union on Thursday filed the federal suit on behalf of Errol Houston Jr., who was arrested last year following a traffic stop."

http://www.wwl.com/ACLU-files-suit-over-gun-rights/4728222

[TPaine7]

33. That headline is hardly evidence.

From the story:

Houston claims Orleans Parish District Attorney Leon Cannizzaro has instituted a policy that firearms seized during arrests will not be returned to their owners.

The ACLU says that policy violates Houston's constitutional rights.

The ACLU had an anti individual gun rights interpretation of the Second Amendment post Heller, last time I checked. Headlines often misrepresent the substance in the story, and the ACLU can easily make a constitutional case against seizing property and arbitrarily refusing to return it to un-tried and un-convicted people after their release. This doesn't necessarily have anything whatsoever to do with the Second Amendment or gun rights; it could be argued as a strictly property rights case.

Perhaps people aren't as information challenged as you assume.

[X_Digger]

34. 4th amendment case, not second.

Perhaps PavePusher was referring to ACLU's stated stance on the second amendment-

"The ACLU interprets the Second Amendment as a collective right. Therefore, we disagree with the Supreme Court’s decision in D.C. v. Heller. While the decision is a significant and historic reinterpretation of the right to keep and bear arms, the decision leaves many important questions unanswered that will have to be resolved in future litigation, including what regulations are permissible, and which weapons are embraced by the Second Amendment right that the Court has now recognized."

http://www.aclu.org/2008/07/01/heller-decision-and-the-second-amendment?page=25

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

39. Now X that's not fair.

You can't actually use the ACLU's stance against Mike.

[Statistical]

125. Dude. Facts are like kryptonite to antis.

You need to be careful and not drop a nuke like that.

Where did you get that "false" quote from? Freeperland? SaraPalin.Com?

Oh wait it says ACLU.ORG.

[BrklynLiberal]

13. How appropriate....

[onehandle]

15. She bagged herself a seven-pointer.

How sportsman like.

[SteveM]

44. Do much hunting? I got a 10-point buck this season...

And I did it by sitting at the base of an oak tree on a mesa, waiting. Sure enough, out comes a nice-sized buck (perhaps 5.5 yrs old), and took him with a well-placed shot. I took 2 deer this season, and have filled my freezer (thereby negating the need to buy beef and other plastic-wrapped meat). And I didn't need a plane, feeder, or guide!

[pipoman]

16. What do you expect?

Endorsing someone based on their gun stance alone, when they have no respect for the rest of our civil liberties, disgusting.

What other criteria should the National Rifle Association...you know, the worlds largest single issue firearms rights advocacy group, base the criteria for endorsement? The candidate's stance on abortion or gay rights? Keeeerist...

If, in the last election cycle, Gov. Richardson would have received the Democratic nomination, and McCain was the repub, The NRA would have endorsed Richardson.

[xchrom]

19. Thatsvabout right -- goodvfit. Nt

[aikoaiko]

27. This is one of the reasons I joined.

So that I can vote on board members who will not let the NRA associate themselves with someone like Palin.

I know some folks around here think it is a foolish strategy, but the NRA wasn't always politically aligned with Republicans so much. In part is the fault of some Democratic politicians who trashed the 2nd and left it to the Republicans to use as wedge issue among the rank and file Democrats.

The more voices from the left in the NRA, the less likely people like Palin will be keynote speakers.

[donheld]

41. They took your money and gave it to Sarah

Happy now?

[aikoaiko]

42. Whether I like it or not, paying Palin to speak will draw more people who pay to attend and ...

...and that means more money to fight for 2nd Amendment rights.

And yes I am generally happy with the progress of the NRA these last couple of years (although not perfectly).

[rhett o rick]

29. Does the NRA support shooting animals from planes and helicopters? nt

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

31. How many states shoot animals from helicopters?

[rhett o rick]

49. I asked you first. nt

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

53. No you didn't.

[rhett o rick]

66. good grief. I asked you a question and you avoided answering.

Let me re-word the question. Is it fair to say that since Palin supports killing animals from planes and helicopters and the NRA supports Palin, that the NRA therefore supports the killing of animals from planes and helicopters?

My guess is those individuals that get pleasure from killing animals from planes are all NRA members.

[X_Digger]

69. How does this logic chain work for you..

God is love.
Love is blind.
Stevie Wonder is blind.
Therefore.. Stevie Wonder is god!

Yah, same illogic.

[rhett o rick]

71. That is cute, but I am willing to bet that the majority of NRA members love Palin

and see nothing wrong with killing animals from a plane or from a helicopter. But it seems you avoid that question and tell me Stevie Wonder is God. Personally, I can not imagine someone getting pleasure from killing an animal, especially with a high powered rifle from a hundred yards. If the animal is lucky(?) the shot will explode it's heart and death will be instantaneous, but most likely the animal wont be so lucky. It may take hours or days before it dies.

[X_Digger]

82. Again you dodge the illogic..

by saying that since X supports Y and Y supports Z, ergo X supports Z!

Do you have a link in your figurative back pocket that backs up the assertion that the NRA supports aerial hunting?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

83. I'm not a member I have no idea what they support.

You seemed to be up on the whole shooting animals from helicopters thing and I thought you might know how many states actually did that. It appears though, you think that they let anyone shoot animals from helicopters in Alaska. So that would indicate that you are actually quite ignorant on the subject.

[spin]

40. Some quick research didn't show any direct support for aerial hunting...

by the NRA.

They did award Sarah the NRA Gold Medal Award of Merit for the Promotion of Gun Collecting.

[rhett o rick]

50. I am not familiar myself, but the NRA celibrates Palin and she supports killing animals from

planes and helicopters. Personally I'd have a hard time killing an animal unless self defense.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

64. How else would you control animal overpopulation in an area like that?

There are MANY cullings across the US to control populations we've allowed to become unbalanced.
Most of the US is accessible by people and citizens who legally hunt with tags and bag limits.
If hunting season doesn't drop populations to sustainable limits, "culls" are organized and extra animals are taken.

Alaska is mostly tundra and very sparsly inhabited - there are not enough resources to traditionally hunt/cull.
Covering ALOT of ground QUICKLY keeps the cost of animal control affordable to the state.
Helicopters and planes are really the only options. Maybe snowmobiles and ATVs, but that's still much slower.

[Euromutt]

68. Reasonable points, but they don't apply to wolf "control" in Alaska

When aerial wolf hunting was outlawed by ballot initiative (twice), Palin's predecessor Murkowski came up with the dodge of instituting "predator control programs," in which private citizens could volunteer to take part. Curiously, you were expected to pay for the privilege of doing the state government's work, and you were permitted to keep the trophy (and it was literally referred to as a trophy). In short, the state government did the equivalent of selling hunting tags with the word "hunting" crossed out and "predator control" written in in crayon.

There was no legitimate reason to institute a "predator control program" for Alaskan wolves, and the Alaskan electorate didn't want aerial gunning, but not selling the tags apparently would have deprived the state of quite a bit of revenue, which is why Palin maintained the policy after she took over from Murkowski.

[rhett o rick]

72. "Animal over population", the justification for killing.

So ms. Palin and her sicko friends declare that wolves are over populating, so you can fly a plane and chase a wolf for miles until it collapses from exhaustion and then land and shot it from point blank and think you are helping humanity or maybe helping nature. I say you are one very sick human being.

The reason the wolves were determined to be over populating Alaska, was because they were killing to many moose and cutting into the big money made from bringing in hunters to kill moose. The wolves' crime, trying to keep nature balanced and ruining the killers fun killing moose.

The NRA supports Palin, and Bush and McCain, etc. There is a pattern here.

[Euromutt]

121. It's a bit more direct than that

It wasn't about the wolves killing moose that out-of-state hunters came to shoot; it's about certain out-of-state hunters who want to brag they've shot a wolf, plus the pelt to prove it, but don't have the wherewithal (skill, patience, sportsmanship) to be equal to the challenge of stalking and taking one on the ground. And it is a challenge, given that unless you know what you're doing, wolves will generally smell you long before you see them, and by the time you get to where they are, they'll be gone. So the "hunters" in question compensate for lack of skill by using aircraft. That's fine with the Alaskan state government, because that way they spend more money, which means more revenue for the state.

I don't know, but suspect, that most (maybe almost all) hunters don't approve of aerial "hunting" of predators; it's not done for food (carnivores tend not to taste very good), and there's no sport to it. The Alaskan electorate doesn't approve of it: they voted by ballot initiative to outlaw it. Twice. (The most recent ballot initiative on the subject resulted in a vote to permit it again, mainly because the proposal was written in extremely confusing language.)

Both Murkowski and Palin's position on the subject, however, is motivated less by bloodlust, and more by love of the filthy lucre that aerial gunning puts into the state's coffers.

[SteveM]

45. The only plane-shooting of animals around here is done by P&W Dept...

to clear out feral hogs. They aren't as romantic as wolves when they over-populate, so there are not many complaints.

Regular hunting? Not even in Texas. And I have seen no support for "hunting" in this manner by the NRA. If you have a link suggesting otherwise, please let me know. Thanks.

[TPaine7]

35. Pathetic

If I were a member or a financial supporter, I would resent the insult to my intelligence.

When (or should I say if?) the Second and Fourteenth Amendment legal issues are properly resolved, perhaps the NRA can focus its efforts on gun safety. Perhaps the President and Democratic leadership will accept reality and take the political club out of the hands of the Republicans.

Can't blame a guy for dreaming...

[tosh]

36. Well, there you have it.

[Callisto32]

43. EEGH

Between her and Glenn Beck, it's enough to make me seriously consider withdrawing my membership.

Then I remember that they are a SINGLE ISSUE group, and so I can only expect them to get behind people that agree on that single issue.

Even your enemies are not ALWAYS wrong.

[Euromutt]

52. Don't forget Newt Gingrich and Ollie North

Also on the schedule of speakers. Between that and the NRA's annual sponsorship of CPAC I have a hard time feeling the NRA--at least its leadership--doesn't identify a wee bit too much with the conservative right.

But yeah, then again, who the hell else are they going to invite to speak? Joe Biden? Eric Holder? Nancy Pelosi?

[SteveM]

46. Actually, what we need is a Partisan gun rights advocacy group...

And we may have the beginnings of one in this forum. The Guns Forum is quite unique in American politics. You can find a number of "left" or liberal gun-rights groups on-line, and tons of RW groups, but within a large umbrella liberal organization (Dailykos, Moveon, etc.) you will NOT find a give-and-take guns forum. You find this only on DU.

As yet, there is no true national-scope 2A-advocacy group within the Democratic Party. Soon, I think there will be, and it will end the "gun-control movement" along with its singular impact on American politics: seriously damaging the Democratic Party and liberal & progressive politics writ large.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

48. What is more important... a candidates liberalism or their 2A stance?

If you are Democratic 2A advocacy group, you will undoubtedly be faced with this question.
What happens when an anti-2A democrat faces a pro-2A repubilcan... who gets the endorsement?
What about a hard-left anti-2A progressive versus a pro-2A centrist democrat?
Hypothetical senate matchup between Kirsten Gillibrand and Barrack Obama... who gets the support?

When you throw in multiple facets of policy support, it's possible for those facets to be contradictory.
Especially when the DLC party platform enshrines AWB renewals and other gun-control.

[SteveM]

60. There's the rub. I've been voting for liberals with crappy 2A records...

for some time. It is only because these candidates are in "safe" (for them) seats that they continue the fiction that gun-control is a "progressive" issue, and it is only because these candidates can get away with a take-it-or-leave-it stance (to pro-2A libs), that they can continue denying the consequences of plutonium milkshakes. When strong pro-2A progressive group(s) WITHIN the party can systematically dice up the gun-control interests, then Democrats will be able to shake off this albatross -- before such stands and candidates "go public" with their candidacy.

edit: somewhat improved grammar.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

47. "Endorsing someone based on their gun stance alone..."

Well, with all due respect, they are ONLY the NRA. As a voter, you will need to research other campagn stances if other topics are of interest to you. The NRA does nto worry about this and does not pretend to. They support politicians who support gun rights regardles of othre stances. Period.

People of all political backrounds enjoy and support the RKBA... the NRA knows this and can recieve support from ALL of the political spectrum based on that single issue. If they start taking sides on other political issues they will dilute their member base and power. The more stances you have, the more opposing arguments you must defend. The NRA does ONE thing... defends gun rights and the politicians who do so as well.

Yes, Sarah Palin is a moron but the the NRA's endorsement of her is hardly surprising given only her stance on firearms.

[rhett o rick]

75. So you are saying that the NRA will support "morons" as long as they are pro-guns? I kinda thought

that, but glad you admitted it. Personally, I wont support a moron regardless of what he or she says.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

76. What do mean "admitted"?

There's no admission to something not hidden. The NRA supports people who support gun rights.
Whther or not some internet blogger thinks they've supported a "moron" is irrelevent to their interests.

[rhett o rick]

78. You are the one that says Palin is a moron. You also say the NRA supports Palin.

Therefore, you are literally saying that the NRA supports someone you consider a moron. It appears to me that the NRA doesnt care what damage Palin might do to the country just as long as she leaves their gun god alone.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

81. Yes, the NRA supports some morons, imo. So what?

Their stances are consistent with the 2A. Why should they give a shit about what myself or anyone else thinks so long as they are consistent to the mission statement they claim to uphold. Despite a few people they support being less than ideal on other policies, they are singularly the most powerful group fighting for citizens' 2A civil rights.

Believe it or not, I can actually support the NRA and still think someone they support is a moron.
It's called free will and refusing to accept false choices.
I no more support Palin than Obama-voters support continued military action in the Middle East.

If you go through life waiting for ideal choices, you'll end up making very few decisions.

[gorfle]

129. How depressing.

As an NRA member, this is depressing.