Gun Control isn't a Democrat vs. Republican Issue

[LAGC]

More often that not, its an URBAN versus RURAL issue.

There are plenty of big city Republican gun control advocates, just as most rural Democrats are pro-gun.

I sympathize with the crime problems that big cities face, but trying to crack down on gun rights -- especially by passing onerous Federal restrictions that apply to the whole country -- is a futile effort, that only pisses off law-abiding gun owners in swing states.

To regain the majority in Congress, urban Democrats NEED their pro-gun rural Democratic colleagues to put them over the top. By pushing for more gun control, it only reinforces the common stereotype that all Democrats are after everyone's guns, and we lose the gun owner vote time after time.

Gun control really is a "wedge issue", especially now that most Americans oppose new gun controls. One of the biggest factors scaring independents away from voting Democratic is them being associated with big city area "liberals" like Charles Schumer and Diane Feinstein who make gun control a central issue.

Is it really worth seeing Republicans maintain their majorities just so we can pass some "feel-good" laws that don't really do anything to positively impact crime or safety?

Let's drop the gun control non-sense and focus on issues that really matter, like women's rights, labor rights, gay rights, poverty, and the environment.

Anything less is self-defeating, and only hastens our march towards Republican fascism.

[jpak]

1. Virtually all the stupid gun laws proposed this year were proposed by republics

and we should let them get away with this insanity?

nope

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

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

[LAGC]

3. Well, a broken clock is right twice a day.

I think you'd see a lot of these pro-gun proposals that are being passed across the country supported by rural Democrats as well if they still had the majority.

They did get CCW in national parks passed, and Obama even signed the bill into law.

[FreakinDJ]

5. You should visit the National Parks in California

prior to pot growing legalization they were a VERY dangerous place and to some degree still are

[DonP]

15. Our "Downstate Dems" are the ones pushing the CCW for Illinois

Much to Daley's embarassment and fury.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

21. Remember, when statewide preemption happens... Chicago won't b able to stop it.

[jpak]

74. How authoritarian

yup

[Callisto32]

89. La la la

[ProgressiveProfessor]

16. Schumer is a Repuke? Who knew?

[krispos42]

34. yeah, because laws against arbitrary cosmetic features are Einstein-level.

:eyes:

[beevul]

37. You forgot the F Krispos N/T

[krispos42]

49. *snort*

LOL

[Ter]

55. Hmm, I count zero

A gun law restricts.

[jpak]

61. FAIL - all these concealed carry, open carry, guns in school parking lots and college laws are GOP

sponsored

yup

[Ken_Fish]

62. gong,.. incorrect.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x382255

[armueller2001]

63. Wrong again

http://www.kc3.com/news/IL_hb_401.htm

YUP

That took 2 minutes to find. Google is your friend.

[Ter]

64. You're right, these laws are unnecessary

The 2nd Amendment covers it all.

[Starboard Tack]

81. The 2nd Amendment covers it all. Hows that working for you?

Which laws in particular do you think are unnecessary? Do you really want your kids to go to school with a gun, or where other kids have guns? We didn't even do that in the Old West. I'm sorry, but this is a form of mass hysteria, has nothing to do with the 2nd A, or hunters' rights. It's a classroom!

[RSillsbee]

84. You are dead wrong

There most certainly were places in the old West where the children had to ride in from outlying farms to attend school and they absolutely did bring guns.

One of the reasons that cowboys (actual ranch hands) carried guns during the course of their duties was so they could shoot the horse if they were thrown and had their foot stuck in the stirrup.

The 2nd Amendment covers it all. Hows that working for you?

The 2nd Amendment covers any legal purpose to which I might put a firearm. As for laws I would get rid of, I should be able to buy a firearm anywhere in the United States and I shouldn't need to apply for a permit to carry a concealed firearm. And finally (for now) I should be able to walk into a post office w/ a gun just like I can walk into my local police station w/ a gun right now

[Starboard Tack]

97. What utter nonsense

[rl6214]

58. Which of these 20th century republics did you say it was?

20th Century and LaterPanama (est. 1903)
Portugal (est. 5 October 1910)
Azerbaijan (est. 18 May 1918, lost independence to Soviet Russia on 28 April 1920), first democratic parliamentary republic in the Muslim world
Commonwealth of the Philippines (1935–1946)
Second Spanish Republic (de jure: 1931–1939) (de facto: 1931-1975)
Fourth French Republic (1946–1958)
Republic of the Philippines (1946, fully independent from the United States of America, inaugurated on 4 July 1946)
Albania (est. 1946)
Ireland (est. 1949)
India (est. 1950)
Fifth French Republic (since 1958)
Algeria (est. 1962)
Singapore (est. 1965)
Afghanistan (est. 1973)
Nepal (est. 2008)
Zimbabwe

[Kolesar]

4. hastens our march towards Republican fascism?

what a truly lame thesis

[LAGC]

6. What do you call union busting and corporate malfeasance?

Is it really worth seeing Republicans take control over the Senate and the Presidency, just so Chuck Schumer can make Democrats who are up for re-election be painted with big targets on their backs by having to vote on such unpopular garbage?

[Kolesar]

7. You cannot express a credible thesis about civics or political science...eom

[Katya Mullethov]

12. I believe you would be correct

From down here it appears as a statist and collectivist vs individualist and consitutionalist kinda thing . A mere diversionary tactic used in avoidance any real nut cutting . It doesn't work anymore , and as more and more collectivists begin to realize this every day , you can smell the fear .

[sellitman]

8. I'll move on when the NRA stops blocking commen sense laws

Until then it will always be a priority of mine.

[armueller2001]

9. What "common sense" laws in particular

would you like to see but the NRA has blocked?

[Starboard Tack]

43. Why do post a pic of your pistol?

[armueller2001]

50. It's not mine.. I consider .380 to be an anemic caliber for defense.

It's from Oleg Volk's web site. He is a photographer and firearm enthusiast who specializes in images that showcase the positive impact firearms can have.

His website is http://www.a-human-right.com/

Also has some great articles about why people own guns for protection, and none of them include a "Rambo complex" like one of our anti- rights folks here likes to say.













Those are just a few images, there are many more. It's worth a look around if you're open minded, you may learn something.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

17. What additional laws do you think are needed

Would not enforcing what we have effectively not be enough?

[DonP]

18. Typical BS drive by post - "NRA sucks, mmmkay" No details or examples

These are always posted by people that know nothing about the NRA, existing gun laws that the NRA supported and even helped draft and have never bothered to check out the NRA web site. If you tell them about the $500,000 the NRA ILA gave Dems last year they don't believe it.

But they saw a bumper sticker once that said something that their idiot brother in law said was stupid and that's good enough for them dammit!

[cleanhippie]

23. We already have more than 17000 "common sense" laws. How many ore do we need?

How about we simply ENFORCE the laws we have?

[Starboard Tack]

46. How about we simply ENFORCE the laws we have?

Because the whole thing is out of control. Unless you have some plan as to how they could be enforced. The cat is out of the bag. Time to shoot the cat, then put away the gun. No pain, no gain.

[rl6214]

59. And when are you running for congress

or the senate so you can pass these laws?

[DrDan]

10. "non-sense"????????

the Democratic National Platform in 2000

"Democrats passed the Brady Law and the Assault Weapons Ban. We increased federal, state, and local gun crime prosecution by 22 percent since 1992. Now gun crime is down by 35 percent. Now we must do even more. We need mandatory child safety locks. We should require a photo license I.D., a background check, and a gun safety test to buy a new handgun. We support more federal gun prosecutors and giving states and communities another 10,000 prosecutors to fight gun crime."


so that is nonsense???????

[Rabblevox]

11. +1

[LAGC]

13. Do you think Al Gore would have lost his own home state of Tennessee in 2000 if...

...he hadn't subscribed to that agenda you laid out right there, especially handgun registration?

There's no reason that election should have been so close (close enough for Bush to steal). It should have never came down to Florida, Tennessee's 11 electoral votes would have put him over the top even without Florida.

Face it: he gave a big "fuck you" to gun owners in his own state and we all paid the price -- 8 years of Bush.

The "Assault Weapons" ban was a disaster in 1994 as well, as Republicans swept Congress.

As for the Brady law, even the "evil" NRA supported it. There's nothing wrong with selling child safety locks, but mandating them? Kind of makes it hard to use a gun in an emergency... of course parents should always keep guns locked away from kids when they are away.

[DrDan]

20. I laid out? - no . . . the Democratic Party did . . . n/t

[LAGC]

22. And how well did that work out for the Democratic Party in 2000? How many swing states did we win?

Have you noticed how Democrats.org scrubbed any mention of gun control from their home page? Why do you suppose that is?

Indeed, you have to dig down and find in their old "full 2008 Democratic National Platform":

Firearms

We recognize that the right to keep and 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 common-sense 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.

Notice how there's no more mention of handgun registration. I predict in 2012 they'll have dropped the "assault weapons" bit, and hopefully by 2016 we won't see any mention of gun control at all.

[DrDan]

26. I get it - fashion the platform on how to attract votes - not on core befiefs of the party

[LAGC]

28. Most of the other core beliefs of the party are majority popular.

But not gun control any more. It's a relic of the 20th Century. So why keep it in?

[DrDan]

31. because it makes sense

[LAGC]

33. But does it make sense to most Americans?

I would suggest that it doesn't any more.

[Starboard Tack]

47. I refer you to the latest polls

http://www.pollingreport.com/guns.htm

Note that 46% of the nation want more strict controls and 68% or 2/3 of democrats do. So, if you want to be in the big tent you have to decide whether to let wedge issues take precedence over the Democratic Platform. Only 5% of democrats want less strict controls. Only 17% of republicans wanted less strict controls, as opposed to 27% who wanted more.
These numbers don't conflict with your graph, but they offer perspective. Gun sales have skyrocketed in recent years, due in large part, to the climate of fear, created by the Bush administration, that has been marketed to the American public since 9/11. Handgun sales are just part of the package. Fear is a great marketing tool. Now, there are people out there, believe it or not, who are encouraging students to go to school armed. Sorry, this doesn't fit into the Democratic Party that I know. This should never be a wedge issue.

[armueller2001]

51. I don't understand what the problem is

with allowing adults 21 years of age or older who have permits, to carry on campus just like they do at movie theaters, restaurants, stores, banks, churches, etc. Do they suddenly lose their minds the second they step across that imaginary line into campus?

Keep in mind there are at least 40 universities that allow carry on campus with ZERO problems.

[armueller2001]

60. Bump

Curious for a response

[Starboard Tack]

80. The problem is that it is uncivilised, period.

Do they suddenly lose their minds when they set foot on campus? Good Lord, I would hope not, but one of them might, and then we'd be in a shitload of trouble. I'd rather see them throw pencils at each other. A classroom should be just as sacred as a church, or an airplane, or a federal building, or my home, not a place of violence or potential violence where people sit around carrying a fucking gun. What the heck is wrong with this society.
And yes, I do Keep in mind there are at least 40 universities that allow carry on campus, and I am thankful that none of my kids attend any of them.

[Callisto32]

90. Let me get this straight.

Tool use....is uncivilized?

[Starboard Tack]

100. Not at all. It's how and/or where one uses them.

Would you approve of people going to school with a machete or a blowpipe or a jackhammer?
It's all about being appropriate. That's how civil society evolves.

[X_Digger]

93. Another arbiter of culture.

Rock on, culture warrior, rock on.

[Starboard Tack]

99. Thank you sir. I will rock on.

I like that "culture warrior" thing. Nice one.

[X_Digger]

105. Wear it proudly, ignore the snickers behind you. n/t

[Ken_Fish]

57. Blah blah, will you vote for some regs that will put a pub in office..

then go for it. These silly pointless laws are for you.. fear, children, blood in the streets, drama, fuck yeah...

oh wait, the potus has not jumped on this bullshit, wonder why???

[spin]

30. If draconian gun control is a "core belief" expect the Democratic Party to go the way of ...

the Dodo bird.



We can however work on improving existing laws and enforcing them and making sure that the names of those who are not supposed to be able to buy firearms are input into the NICS background check system in a timely manner.

There is absolutely no reason to shoot ourselves in the foot once again by pushing for another useless ban on "assault weapons" or attempting to pass more "feel good" laws like banning magazines that hold more than 10 rounds.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

44. +1

[cleanhippie]

24. You seem to be missing the point.

Or else you DO see the point and realize how wrong you are and are just deflecting.

[DrDan]

27. I get the point ----- gun control = "nonsense"

Democratic platform supports gun control - hence can be considered "nonsense"

[Ken_Fish]

29. Not all dems and have not heard the POTUS using the recent events

in Arizona to make arguments to emotion. The platform changes, by voting for people in the primaries with strong records the point is made.

Gun control as crime control is done, like Vanilla Ice it went out of style back in the 90's.

The numbers support my position, the vast majority of people support my position, and supreme court twice supported this position.

Its a done deal.. Now the issue of violence and mental health are still real problems.. they could use a solution.

Instead of taking the republican position of fuck them we should , as a party, address those issues in a truthful manner. It is the right thing to do.

[Starboard Tack]

82. 2 out of every 3 Dems want stricter gun control OK

and more than 1 in 4 repubs wants stricter control. Deal with that. Why are you trying to push the GOP and NRA agenda? You don't have to mimic them to beat them. Let's face it, after 8 years of W and his gang, it shouldn't be hard to keep the moral high ground. So, I say, keep your guns, go hunting, shoot the wife, whatever, but please keep them out of schools and shopping malls and stop cheering for the morons on the other side. It's really unbecoming.

[old mark]

115. Actually , that is not true. About 40% of Democrats own guns and a lerge percentage

of us carry them.
I have had a license to carry a firearm for almost 16 years now, and I certainly do.

I'd guess you do not.

mark

[cleanhippie]

36. Considering that it causes Dems to lose elections, I would say you are right.

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

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

[Starboard Tack]

45. Shame on the voters in Tennessee

If gun control was the deal breaker. Good on Gore for sticking to his "guns"

[X_Digger]

53. baby.. bath water.. what's the difference, eh?

Was 8 years of chimpy worth it?

[Ken_Fish]

14. Sure do. Its city mouse country mouse horse crap. Its why S Chicago is a dump

and El Paso is not. Gun control = crime control is a failure and actually harms people because while passing bans makes people feel better and gives them the ability to say look poor minorities in S Chicago, we did something to help you..


Did we address drug law that has jailed or criminalized millions of blacks, no.
Did we address mental health care, we are getting there.

Root cause of violence is not guns. It is more expensive and complicated so incentives exist to pass happy horseshit laws rather than fix problems.

Hopefully the party will continue its move away from gun control.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

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

[cleanhippie]

39. +1

[Euromutt]

40. Notice the "non causa pro causa" in that quote?

Democrats passed the Brady Law and the Assault Weapons Ban. We increased federal, state, and local gun crime prosecution by 22 percent since 1992. Now gun crime is down by 35 percent.

Emphasis in bold mine. Something along the lines of "enforcing the laws we already have" comes to mind.

As one example of the Non causa pro causa fallacy (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html#noncausa) puts it:
"I took an aspirin and prayed to God, and my headache disappeared. So God cured me of the headache."

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

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

[Starboard Tack]

42. +2

Also, how about having a damn good demonstrable reason to be issued a CCW

[beevul]

48. We prefer...

"Also, how about having a damn good demonstrable reason to be issued a CCW"


We prefer a damn good demonstrable reason NOT to be issued a CCW.

And the problem with that is what exactly?

[armueller2001]

52. Excellent response.

If we leave the issuance of rights up to a government bureaucrat, he/she gets to decide if your life is worth protecting. If you're not wealthy enough, if you didn't donate to the sheriff's political fund, if you prefer to go to bed at night with someone of the same sex, or if your skin has too much melatonin, you can be denied. Or for pretty much any other reason.

Those states are called "may issue", I prefer to call them "may discriminate".

[X_Digger]

54. Love to get your opinion here..

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x316554

[RamboLiberal]

56. Be able to protect my own life

Is a damned good reason!

[Upton]

25. Rural pro gun Democrat checking in...

and you're 100% spot on..

Most of the folks I know, even those who otherwise sympathize with the Democratic party, are sick and tired of authoritarian urban limousine liberal types trying to restrict or remove their 2nd Amendment rights..

And until it changes, the party is just ceding rural America to the Republicans..

[spin]

32. My Democratic representative in the Florida House always ...

advertises his support for the Second Amendment and mentions how important RKBA is to the people he represents.

edited to improve

[Starboard Tack]

72. Typical DINO

[Upton]

75. No, common sense Democrat

[spin]

76. If you ran an anti-gun Democrat in this area ...

He would LOSE!!!!!!

Everybody here owns firearms. Deer hunting is a very popular along with cheering for either the Florida Gators or the Seminoles. Since this is a poor area of Florida, people here hunt mainly for meat for their freezers. Religion is big time and people will actually come up to you in the grocery store and talk about their beliefs in Christianity. (I lived in Tampa for 38 years and moved to retire here. I have to admit that the difference in the two areas amazed me.) I doubt if you would like living here.

To you, my representative might be a DINO but to me he's the best candidate for the job. Fortunately a lot of other people in this very conservative, religious, gun owning community agree with me.

The Democratic Party is a big tent. Perhaps you don't realize that Howard Dean had a high rating from the NRA when he was the Governor of Vermont as did Bill Richardson who was the Governor of New Mexico from 2003 to 2011. Even Harry Reid, the Senate Majority Leader, has a fairly high NRA lifetime rating. If we judged Democrats on their stance on gun rights and threw them out of the party because they didn't favor a draconian gun agenda, the Democratic Party would rapidly take its place in history with the Whig Party and the America First Party.

By the way, welcome to DU.

[Starboard Tack]

79. Thank you for the welcome to DU

I feel for you, having also lived in Florida for many years. Fortunately many years ago. I understand you have to do what you have to do to keep the repugs at bay. So let me clarify my position on this issue. I have no problem with hunting (though personally I prefer bow hunting). The "R" in NRA stands for rifles, or long guns, which I don't have a problem with either. My problem is with handguns and weapons of war, and the carrying of them in public places, such as malls, churches, schools, city limits etc., which I do not believe is conducive to people living in a civil society.

[beevul]

87. You seem to be misinformed, at least somewhat.

"My problem is with handguns and weapons of war, and the carrying of them in public places, such as malls, churches, schools, city limits etc., which I do not believe is conducive to people living in a civil society."


"Weapons of war" have been tightly controlled since 1934, so I'm not really sure what you're talking about there.

[Starboard Tack]

98. Weapons of war would include, in my opinion

all weapons (guns and/or ammo) designed specifically to kill humans. I'm sure you don't need any help figuring out which weapons fall into that category.

[benEzra]

101. Say goodbye to bolt-action rifles, then.

Mauser infantry rifle


Winchester Model 70, a Mauser derivative used as the U.S. military sniper rifle in Vietnam


Remington Model 700, aka the M24 Sniper Weapon System




The only "weapon of war" I own is an antique bolt-action that appears to have actually served in World Wars I and II:






Non-automatic civilian AR's and 7.62x39mm AK's, on the other hand, have never been issued as infantry weapons by any military; they are exclusively civilian guns. This rifle has never been issued by any military:






FWIW, I'd love for you to compare annual homicides by so-called "assault rifles" to homicides by shoes and bare hands, or knives, or clubs, or bicycle deaths...

[Starboard Tack]

103. Keep it, just don't carry that stuff to school with you

Is that too much to ask?
I don't care if you have a barn full, just don't bring it into town. I'm asking you, not telling you, BTW

[benEzra]

111. I hold a carry license, FWIW.

To qualify, as I've mentioned before, I had to pass a Federal background check, an NC background check, a mental health records check, an FBI fingerprint check, take a state-approved class on self-defense law, and demonstrate competence with a handgun on a shooting range. I carry a Smith & Wesson "Lady Smith" 9mm, which presumably fits your "bad" criteria, and a Kimber pepper spray.

Statistically, I'm far less of a threat to you than the people around you without carry licenses. I'm not arguing causality, of course, since it's primarily due to selection bias, but I am pretty demonstrably not a threat to you, and most who would be a threat wouldn't bother getting a license to carry legally.

[Starboard Tack]

113. I don't spend time wondering if anybody is a threat to me, statistically or not

Personally, I never gave much thought to these issues before I joined DU and entered this very lively forum, which I find rather fascinating. I grew up in a rural community where shotguns and hunting rifles were common. I had my first air rifle at the age of eight, then a series of shotguns (all 2 barrels) and became an excellent skeet shooter. So, I have nothing against guns per se. My problem is with carrying in the community, especially in schools, with or without a permit, open or concealed. I'm sorry, but it makes no sense to me.
I know the reasoning put forth in this forum and it astounds me. We need them because there are bad guys out there that we may need to defend ourselves against and those bad guys may have guns. OK, there are bad guys out there with handguns. That is a problem. So how do we fix it? Heck, let's just all arm up. So let's imagine that there were a half dozen CCW carrying members of this forum within 200 feet of Giffords, when she was shot in Tucson. I don't know if the outcome would have been better or worse, but I have to wonder if 7 people shooting might have made it 7 times worse. I dunno.
Just isn't the world I want to live in. You may have a very sound reason to carry and I respect that. But it doesn't make me feel any better knowing that we do live in a society where people genuinely feel the need to carry a gun during the course of their daily lives, and unless they work in law enforcement or similar, I find that so hard to get my head around. It is an indictment on society itself.
Didn't mean to ramble on too much. Just got into port from a great 9 hour sail.

[ZombieHorde]

35. I agree. I go to school in Montana, and many of my classmates love to hunt and

fish. They're liberal environmentalists. If our wild places are polluted or developed, they know they won't be able to hunt and fish any more.

[DrDan]

65. loving to kill is neither liberal nor environmentally-friendly

[Ken_Fish]

66. Deer meat is tasty. And unless you are a Vegan.

killing a deer (or other for food game animal) is the first step in the process of eating it.

That meat under plastic at your store just has lots more chemicals and crap in it (literally) before it was killed.

[DrDan]

69. I am referring to those who "love to hunt" - as referred to in the post I responded to

isn't killing a part of hunting?

[Ken_Fish]

70. Unless you just consume plants, its part of a meal.(nt)

[DrDan]

71. I am referring to people who "love" the hunt - not those that hunt

for food. I do not have a problem with that at all.

[one-eyed fat man]

91. So suicidal cows just park their rumps to be roasted on your grill?

Just how do you get food with feet to cooperate? Or do you hold yourself morally superior because you hire your killing done?



Figure the kid has any illusions about where rabbit stew comes from? From those quaint times in the Fifties when I could get a box of .22 Long Rifles at the General Store for 18 cents.

[DrDan]

92. do you hunt to eat - or do you "love to hunt" -

I see a difference. Perhaps you don't. If so, I understand.

I don't hold myself morally superior - regardless of how your conscious deals with it. I don't understand those that "love to hunt" (kill) and consider themselves "sportmen" due to their ability to bag some trophies.

[one-eyed fat man]

94. I don't hunt anything I don't eat.

Now, do you ask do I enjoy hunting quail with a couple friends, some good pointers? Absolutely! Quail in the pot are a bonus. When I was kid, hunting for the pot was closer to necessity than byproduct of recreation. The great aunt whose farm we lived on was not electrified until 1952. One of the kid chores was to draw water from the well. You can't imagine the big change that meant! A pump house which meant plumbing inside! A septic tank replacing the outhouse. A refrigerator instead of an icebox! For those city slickers wondering why the washing machine was on the porch, it was run with a Briggs & Stratton not an electric motor!

Do I have to hunt? No, I am not a subsistence hunter. I could just as easily forego venison, ducks, quail, geese, pheasants, rabbits or buy their domesticated counterparts. I choose not to. I enjoy hasenpfeffer. Roasting a brace of doves in campfire Dutch oven is something my nephews were young is something they now tell their kids about.

Come fall, some of us old buzzards still get hogs ready for the smokehouse. Although now we are more likely to use the high lift on the tractor to dunk the hog into the scalding tank rather than a block and tackle. I have no doubt what's in my country ham. Can you say the same? By the time we're done we'll have used every part but the squeal and the asshole.

[DrDan]

95. my comments are directed to the trophy seekers - those

who hunt for the kill and the trophy, not those who hunt for food.

[one-eyed fat man]

96. Not always clear cut.

I don't have much respect for someone who hunts for a set of antlers and leaves the carcass to feed the buzzards. On the other hand, since I don't have to hunt to survive, I'll sometimes pass on animals I looking for the nice buck. Hunting purely for the pot it makes much more sense to shoot a yearling. A five to seven year old trophy buck is going to make a lot of sausage, as except for the backstraps, he's likely to need a lot chewing otherwise.

Hunting rabbits with a good beagle, you need to shoot a rabbit now and then for the partnership to work. When you open the rabbit up, you shake the guts out on the ground. You put the rabbit in your game bag while the dog devours the guts. Both of you feel like you got the better part of the bargain.

[benEzra]

102. I honestly don't think there are all that many of those.

Every single hunter I know who has antlers on their walls eats what they kill. They keep the antlers as trophies, sure, but they aren't hunting for antlers, and a lot of hunting permits are for does.

Having said that, I think there tends to be an overemphasis on hunting as a reason for gun ownership among both pro- and anti-gun groups. Only about 1 in 5 U.S. gun owners hunts; most of us are nonhunters, and most of us own guns for defensive capability and target shooting. That is not going to change.

[LAGC]

67. Who wants to kill?

You really think all gun owners are just blood-thirsty savages that want to settle all disputes with force?

You do realize that in the vast majority of self-defense uses with a gun, SHOTS ARE NEVER FIRED.

Just brandishing is often all it takes to prevent an assault and make the perpetrator back down.

Its not so much the force, but the THREAT of force that does the trick.

No one relishes the idea of shooting other people.

[DrDan]

68. why don't you take a look at the post I was responding to

what does "love to hunt" mean to you . . . .

[RSillsbee]

73. There is a lot more to hunting than just the kill

I love to be in the mountains (part of hunting) I love to camp ( part of hunting) I love to spend my day in the woods (part of hunting)

there is a whole lot that goes on surrounding that one second where you pull the trigger

[DrDan]

83. I agree - and I also enjoy those things

difference is, I don't need to end my enjoyment-of-the-outdoors with a kill

[RSillsbee]

85. I don't either

I haven't hunted since I left the Army, but if you are going to properly use the game you take and you take it humanely I have no objection to hunting.

We need to do more hunting because in many places the wild animal population is outgrowing their range and many of them are starving. This is partially due to the fact that we have wiped out the predators and hunting is at an all time low. There are parts of I-25 through Colorado where there is a dead deer (hit by cars) every half mile or so. I once had to put down a deer right after it had been hit by a car and it was once of the worst experiences in my life. To see an animal in that much pain for no good reason and the animal didn't even understand what was happening. I would way rather that animal was humanely harvested

IMO the herds need to be thinned for the benefit of the remaining population.

[DrDan]

88. I don't disagree with anything you say

I didn't say I had an objection to hunting - only question those that "love to hunt" which to me translates into "love to kill".

I have no objection to those that hunt for food, thin a herd so more can survive, put a deer down for humanitarian purposes.

[Katya Mullethov]

104. I understand your confusion

What you have encountered is what we in the industry call a "Sportsman" .
Or in layman's terms , " assholes" . I have some fine examples , if you
need me to trot them out .

[ZombieHorde]

77. Do you doubt meat eaters can be liberals? I don't understand your opinion. nt

[Name removed]

78. Deleted message

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

[RSillsbee]

86. Old Yeller

In the book Travis' mom told him old Yeller had to go right after the fight w/ the wolf. There wasn't any stick him in the corn crib for a month. Travis loaded his gun, called Yeller up from the house and shot him right then and there.

TYPO

[Euromutt]

106. You might want to try talking to someone from your state Fish & Wildlife Service some time

Hunting is one of the tools in the wildlife management toolbox to prevent wildlife populations from exceeding the habitat's "carrying capacity" (i.e. to prevent overpopulation). Hunting is also one of the few tools that actually pays for itself (from the wildlife manager's point of view). For example, the Washington State Department of Fish & Wildlife gets over 50% of its funding from the sale of hunting licenses and game tags. Another 35% comes from special taxes levied on firearms, ammunition and certain archery products under the Pittman-Robertson Act. Less than 15% comes from the state's general fund. So the state's wildlife management activities are largely funded by hunters.

"Loving to hunt" is, incidentally, not synonymous with "loving to kill." There's a lot excitement in just trying to draw the animal in to where you can get a shot, and the killing can be almost incidental, as the unavoidable precondition to getting the animal into the fridge.

[DrDan]

107. of course it is. Otherwise the shot taken would be with a camera

so the animal could live to once again be "stalked". The kill adds to the excitement of the experience and is certainly not "unavoidable". I am, of course, referring to those who hunt for reasons beyond simply putting food on a table. Otherwise please explain the obsession with trophies held my many "sportsmen".

[TheWraith]

112. Some hunters enjoy participating in the cycle of nature.

In my area, we've removed most of the serious predators from the wild. Without some amount of hunting, you have overpopulation by deer, starvation, and also it endangers people in the form of deer-car accidents. I've been in a couple of those, and they're no joke, they can get you killed if you're not lucky. I was, both times.

Are there some who are out there because they love to shoot living things? Sure. I consider them assholes, and talk idly about returning fire if I ever see them hunting on my property. Do you think that that somehow reflects on all gun owners everywhere?

[DrDan]

116. yes - of course it does

all teens are not delinquents, all republicans are not teabag greedy, and all blondes are not dumb.

I have no problem with the population control you describe. it is, unfortunately, necessary at times. And those that hunt for food - no issue. Trophy collectors - now that is a completely different story.

[Euromutt]

117. Photographs aren't very nutritious

I said "an unavoidable precondition to getting the animal into the fridge." Thus, I used the word "unavoidable" inextricably in the context of hunting for food. Not necessarily exclusively for food--that's where the excitement comes in--but for food nonetheless. You can't eat the animal if you only take a photograph of it.

[Katya Mullethov]

108. Notice the "non causa pro causa" in that mission statement ?

It is considered conventional wisdom not unlike the commonly understood ways in which guns fuel violence , losers are oppressed in much greater numbers than other demographics , or marihuana causes the negro to seek the carnal knowledge of our young white womanhood .... so I do not fault you one bit if ya cant spot it .

[Katya Mullethov]

109. You give up ?

C'mon man , that was an easy one .

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

110. In all fairness, the post you respond to states "love to hunt"... not "love to kill"

There's alot more to hunting than killing. Hunting can be very challenging - in fact, the most challenging part is typically getting to the point where you can attempt to take the game.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

114. are you implying that gun owners "love to kill" ...?

surely not.