"No one needs an assault weapon," Schoenke said.

I disagree. I do need one.
If one third of the Jews in nazi Germany had owned assault rifles and had the will to use them they may have been able to stop the nazis from exterminating millions of people.
For the $400 or so you pay for a semi auto AK, a few mags, and 300 or so rounds of ammo for it, I think you get a whole lot of national security.

Hunted Broad

Bruce wrote:

>I wonder how Ray Schoenke and his organization would like to be hunted in the broadest sense? Would he roll over and bawl? Would he look around and decide shall not be infringed is reallly where it is at? Would he wet his pants and complain to Feinstein and Brady?<
*************

Now, Bruce...You've missed the point entirely. People like that feel that THEY should have anything that they want in order to protect themselves because THEY are VIPs, and because they're so much smarter than we are...so they can be trusted with such dangerous things. YOU, on the other hand, should crawl and beg for permission to have what you hope to...and you'd better have a genuine, demonstrable need for it, or it'll be like mommy used to tell us when she caught us takin' three chocolate chip cookies instead of two. "Now, Junior! You just don't need that many cookies! Put one back, you naughty boy!

To repeat a quote that I'm growing deeply fond of:

"They may promise to govern well, but they mean to govern.
They may promise to be good masters...but they mean to be masters."

Me? I have only one Master, and defer to His will. I will have no others, and I will not beg for permission to exercise my inalienable, Constitutionally acknowledged and protected rights.

I read AHSA website and they don't sound very anti-gun. They even want to roll back the DC gun ban to allow people to have weapons in their homes or business. It might be a front for an anti-group but why would they state they support self defence and CCW. http://www.huntersandshooters.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogsection&id=12&Itemid=32

The AHSA is known to be affiliated with various gun-banning leaders in the Democratic party.

I personally am opposed to hunting. I don't like it. But I am in favor of people owning assault rifles and military-style semi-autos. I'm not sure where that leaves me as far as the AHSA is concerned.

"We don't want the soccer moms out there to be frightened of us."


I don't give a tinker's cuss about yuppie dames. These soccer moms are the petit bougeois handmaidens to the establishment. If some moronic ladies magazine or Opra Winfrey told them to stand on their heads and spit nickels, they would do it. They are the permanent "stupidocracy" of American life. We will rue the day back in Victorian times our society became a matriarchal one.

"We don't want the soccer moms out there to be frightened of us."


I don't give a tinker's cuss about yuppie dames. These soccer moms are the petit bougeois handmaidens to the establishment. If some moronic ladies magazine or Opra Winfrey told them to stand on their heads and spit nickels, they would do it. They are the permanent "stupidocracy" of American life. We will rue the day back in Victorian times our society became a matriarchal one.

Click to expand...

Oh, for the love of PETE. Will you all knock off the garbage about women??? May I remind you that there are a ton of MEN who are part of the anti-gun movement? Go take something as an antidote to your testosterone poisoning. I'm sick unto death of seeing this kind of nonsense blaming women for what is a loud vocal minority comprised of both men AND women.

Women comprise a fast-growing portion of the gun owners of this country. Women gun hunters have increased over 70% in the last couple of years. Some cockeyed notion of "matriarchy" is not the issue.

People who have made racist comments on this board lately have been rightfully castigated by the readers for their racism. I'd like to see the same intolerance for misogynist garbage as well.

Springmom

Another THR haiku:

I smirk at this thread,
The posts, such as the above,
Insecurities.

It might be a front for an anti-group but why would they state they support self defence and CCW.

Click to expand...

Because they're a gang of lying frauds, as all anti-gunners are? The facts about the American Hunters and Shooters Association are out there for all who care to go digging for them. God bless Algore and his Internets.

I do. If I find myself one day fighting against a repressive government, I want to be using the same weapons they are.

Click to expand...

Hello all,

It may come to that, but what I see more in the future is major terrorist attacks in the US. We will be protecting ourselves from either terrorist or low lifes who are taking advantage of the situation.

Sorry to go off topic.

Doesn't Matter WHAT You Call 'Em,

If it's an arm, the keeping and bearing of it is protected by the Second Amendment. Naturally, the anti-gun-rights crowd would LOVE to carve up and classify all sorts of arms! You know, "Divide and Conquer"! If they can succeed in convincing enough people there are "good" arms and "bad" arms, well, there is a slice parsed out of our collection of arms that can be demonized right out of our hands! You know, just like what happened to machine guns!

I don't care if its a straw used for launching spitballs or an ICBM with multiple warheads, it's an arm! That's why I will always stand on the fact that the right as protected by the Second Amendment applies to ALL arms. Let them classify all the different categories, uses, scariness, and power levels of arms all they want. Just keep reminding them they are all ARMS and that the keeping and bearing of the same is not subject to infringement. Period.

Woody

"The Second Amendment is absolute. Learn it, live it, love it and be armed in the defense of freedom, our rights, and our sovereignty. If we refuse infringement to our Right to Keep and Bear Arms, as protected by the Second Amendment, we will never be burdened by tyranny, dictatorship, or subjugation - other than to bury those who attempt it. B.E.Wood

Dear Mr. Schoenke,

I don't play football. So far as I can see, no one needs a football.
To my way of thinking, you were nothing more than someone who was
paid tremendous amounts of money to chase a ball; something that my dog does for free.

I'll happily ignore everything you have to say on the gun issue, and continue to
spend my time with real champions among the shooting community.

Cheers,
Justin

"'No one needs an assault weapon,' Schoenke said," so lets take away the ones that cops have

RKBA

Woody...Bingo!

The 2nd Amendment doesn't say that we have the right to keep and bear
sporting goods, and 2A isn't about hunting and target shooting. Never has been. "They" are fully aware of that reality, and that's precisely why they hate it so much. It's a way of denying them another step toward absolute control.

Power is the great seductress. Not money, and not prestige. Power.

While I am sure that there are a few exceptions in our country, no one needs an assault weapon, yet.

And, while I am sure that there are a few exceptions in our country, no one needs to hunt either, yet. (This doesn't include those folks who rely on subsistence huntng for their food.)

However, the Boy Scout motto is "Be Prepared". The Dept. of Homeland Security is launching its "Ready" campaign which stresses that folks need to create a family preparedness plan.

In the event of catastrophic societal collapse and a cascading failure of gov't services, both hunting and assault weapons may be necessary to ensure your families survival. So "Be Prepared". Resist any and all attempts to outlaw essential survival tools and techniques. Your life doesn't depend on it, yet.

Yet

Grey...Well said.

Just because you don't need a tow truck tonight doesn't mean that you never will...and if you do, that pistol on the seat makes ya feel a little better while ya wait for next up in the county...at 2 AM...on a dark stretch of backroad. Yessir it do. Yes indeedy.

whatever they will try to outlaw....I will buy.
Ross's first law of Unintended Consequences

1911Tuner,

Exactly my point. Most of the things I have around my house aren't necessary 99% of the time. Seriously, do I need 8 different shovels everyday? No. But when it comes time to move that pile of gravel on my back porch, the transfer shovel will be the best for the job. And when I need to dig up the rose bushes next to the door, I have just the right tool for the job.

When everything goes to heck, I hope and pray that I will have the necessary tools and knowledge for that situation as well. I am certain that 99.995% of the time, my collection of guns will basically serve no practical purpose at all, but the 0.005% of the time that I will need them is why I keep them near and dear.

Just like the Gerber 8" hatchet. Really, would a hatchet this small do any good for splitting wood? No. But that's not why I keep it. I keep it for when someone brings a Spiderco to a hatchet-fight.

Leadership change

So, maybe we and a majority of NRA members should join and replace the current board! They have how many members?, and we have over 4M!

I smirk at this thread, The posts, such as the above, Insecurities.

Click to expand...

Yes, a little suspicion is a good thing. I personally couldn't care less about modern military styled rifles, battle rifles. But I would not vote to restrict them.

Their web site says nothing about gun control other than what is in the article. I still think it's the Democratic party. You can bet that the Democrats are going to paint an entirely different persona come the 2008 campaign relative to gun control.

Just A Little Humor...

Speaking of "tools" - if, when, or how often you'll need them...

"If I've got skeletons in my closet, it's because I don't have a backhoe!"

Woody

The relationship between the First Amendment and the Second... Yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded theater should only result in a profusion of bullet holes in the screen where the villain last appeared! B.E.Wood

some obseervations on this thread

1. I don't need an assault rifle. It is a modern convenience, like a microwave, an electric light, or an automobile.

2. I don't know what an assault weapon is, and neither does anybody else. to me, it follows the same linguistic pattern as "murder weapon", and should be construed to mean a weapon that has previously been used in committing the crime of assault. Instead, in some circles it means an automatic rifle, and in some others it refers to an autoloading rifle with certain cosmetic and/or peripheral features.

3. The most powerful, highest caliber weapon I own is my sharps 45-70 sporter rifle. It can shoot through brick walls, cars, bulletproof glass, fuel storage tanks, and presumably parked aircraft (though this last one I've never tried). It can shoot 2 miles and strike with deadly force. I can shoot it ten times a minute, on target. sometimes a little more. It looks like a very nice hunting rifle. It was made in 1878, so some laws don't even consider it a "firearm". So that one's fine for me to own, as far as AHSA is concerned.

4. The smallest caliber rifle I own is an ar 15 a2 with all the fixin's. Match barrel, micro-peep sights, extendable stock, muzzle brake/ flash hider, everything like that. Wicked black rifle extraordinaire. Even has a dragon stamped on it for the maker's mark. Shoots tiny bullets, though. and with much less range than the sharps. so that one's out, as far as the AHSA people go.

5. I like that some people have pointed out that the constitution does not grant the right to bear arms. It affirms the right, which existed a priori. In a strange sort of way, bearing arms is actually what guarantees the right to bear arms.

There's a reason people who would be others' masters focus so much on needs. A need is demonstrable: It can be examined against external criteria created by someone who is not the person asserting need. A need can be denied, and the person denying this need can argue convincingly in support of the denial. A needs-based society must necessarily be one wherein all members are continually asking for permission from those who adjudicate other people's needs. Given that life is basically a complex and balanced set of needs, the ability to judge what people need is the ability to enslave them. More practically, the attitude that one is capable of determining another's needs is the smuggest form of paternalistic arrogance; ironically, it is almost universally found in those least capable of making those decisions.

Wants, on the other hand, are pure assertion. Nobody can realistically argue that another person doesn't want something. Denying what someone wants is indefensible; it is patently clear that the person performing the denial is enforcing his will on another. Arguments about need are always offered in defense of denial of wants, because the denial of a want can never be justified on its own without claiming some fundamental right to control another's life. A society built on making available to people that which they want must be based on the assumption that people are the sole arbiters of their own lives and the only ones capable of competantly determining their own needs; therefore, giving people what they want is the best way to ensure that everyone gets exactly what he needs. Sometimes people will use their ability to purchase what they want to buy something they apparently have no need of, but this just goes to show how clearly others fail to understand another's need.

While I am sure that there are a few exceptions in our country, no one needs an assault weapon, yet.

Click to expand...

And one of those exceptions was the Rodney King riots in LA. I vividly remember the image of the shopowners on their rooftops with AK's. Those were the ones that weren't burned to the ground.

What a putz!
Its the Bill of Rights, not the Bill of Needs.