Even the liberal media gets it
- Thread starter Solo
- Start date
- Status
JRH6856
Member
Hunting weapons? Don't you mean "deadly, high powered military style sniper rifles that can kill at long range with only one shot." ?
BTW, the link is still dead.
BTW, the link is still dead.
Last edited:
Buck Kramer
Member
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2009
- Messages
- 683
Oh the irony, "they are banning them based on cosmetic features" EXACTLY!!!
fanchisimo
Member
shep854
Member
How many anti-hunting groups are in the Left's camp? They are waiting in line for their pound of flesh.
fanchisimo
Member
I don't think hunting will ever be in danger because it provides a necessary function. If not for hunters, deer would be out of control and hogs moreso than they are now.
Fishslayer
Member
What is crystal clear to me is that DiFi has decided that she will be the decider on what particular guns we are allowed to have...
One can hunt with a recurve bow. You don't need guns to hunt. You could eliminate them entirely and still "respect hunters and sportsmen."
The problem with the ban "protecting" guns is that it doesn't do that. Only a moron would think that a ban, which by definition restricts something, could also protect that same thing.
Also, are American citizens now children who are "allowed" their rights by a loving, benevolent government?
Somebody needs to read some John Locke if they think that's how it works.
The problem with the ban "protecting" guns is that it doesn't do that. Only a moron would think that a ban, which by definition restricts something, could also protect that same thing.
Also, are American citizens now children who are "allowed" their rights by a loving, benevolent government?
Somebody needs to read some John Locke if they think that's how it works.
michaelbsc
Member
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2012
- Messages
- 374
No, we need to read Hobbes to see where they want to take us.
That's exactly the "fundamental change" the beltway insiders want. It isn't DiFi or the Big-O. It's the whole insider bunch.
They want to change the social contract. The Locken view is that we each individually are sovereign and that that we associate together freely for mutual benefit. The laws we pass forbidding things like murder we pass for mutual benefit. (Makes sense. Don't want it to be OK for someone to go around knocking people off.)
The Hobbes social contract is that we cannot rise above a state of perpetual chaos and lawless mayhem as free agents, so we must bind ourselves to a powerful sovereign (or modern day state rather than king) to bring order and structure to our lives. In return we ask permission for things. Essentially laws are passed to tell us what's allowed.
Ehtereon11B
internet infantryman
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2012
- Messages
- 983
Never underestimate the ignorance of someone who has never hunted to put food on their table. I have seen anti-hunting arguments that include "why go out to kill things when you can buy meat at the store without having an animal die." I kid you not.
My biggest laugh about Feinstein's bill is it is not aimed at damaging "hunting or sporting purposes." Well, shooting an AR or handguns with 10+ rounds is sporting to me.
beatledog7
Member
Fundamentally transforming American--one ban at a time.
Ragnar Danneskjold
Member
No. They'll just create government agencies to go cull the herds of animals and then dispose of the carcasses instead of letting people hunt them. Why let citizens solve the problem on their own and use the byproduct when you can waste tax dollars, increase the amount of government employees, and deprive people of something they want all at the same time?
Carl N. Brown
Member
Military guns can be used for sporting purposes as well as military purposes. Americans have used military surplus rifles for hunting and target shooting for centuries.
Fidel Castro's weapon of choice in the Cuban revolution against Batista was a .30-06 Model 70 Winchester hunting rifle with 4x hunting scope.
Any gun can be used for good or bad. We ought to go after bad actors, rather than felonize owners of "bad" guns.
Fidel Castro's weapon of choice in the Cuban revolution against Batista was a .30-06 Model 70 Winchester hunting rifle with 4x hunting scope.
Any gun can be used for good or bad. We ought to go after bad actors, rather than felonize owners of "bad" guns.
Carl N. Brown
Member
This link appears to work (there was an extraneous http// and %22 quote in the other)
http://news.yahoo.com/gun-ban-protect-more-2-200-firearms-132222943.html
http://news.yahoo.com/gun-ban-protect-more-2-200-firearms-132222943.html
Carl N. Brown
Member
That's the real diff between Locke and Hobbes.
Gilbert Ernest McGill (Firearms Policy Review, Powtomack Institute) never could keep his Locke and Hobbes quotes straight.
I also love/hate it when anti-gunners misquote Max Weber on monopoly of force. Weber defined a failed state as one that had no lawful control on use of force, whether it was military, police, individual self-defense or private security. The state that exercised rule of law over use of force was successful (including lawful individual self-defense and private security); the state that had lawless use of force was a failed state (including unlawful military or police use of force). The left likes to reduce Weber to absolute state monopoly on use of force. They also sign-off on fiascos like Waco.
Look at the author's other AP articles. She has a consisten Anti message. The fact that she also appears to understand the facts pretty well is more troublesome.
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/maze-gun-laws-us-hurts-gun-control-efforts
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/background-checks-peak-week-after-conn-shooting
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/fewer-gun-buyers-seen-us-mass-shooting-states
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/fewer-excited-gun-buyers-colo-and-conn
BTW, this foolish meme of referring to the "liberal media" simply isn't correct. The mainstream media, Fox included, spouts Anti propaganda in one form or the other. It is just a question of how biased against us the material may be. Make no mistake, there's no simple boogeyman you can discount as the "liberal media" since you see "conservative media" using terms and expressing opinions that more subtly further the Anti agenda.
Ragnar Danneskjold
Member
That's because deep down these are people who want to be governed. They want to be managed. They want the stability offered by a unified plan for life. Each person just fits into that plan. "You want a gun, join the Army" and "only police and soldiers should have guns". This shows us how the mind of a leftist works. Police and soldiers are specific roles. And the use of guns is assigned to those roles. If you don't fit into that role, you don't get to use guns. The idea of an individual with his own life, desires, rights, liberties, and choices is something that is just too chaotic, violent, and outdated to them. And evolved proper society is a collective where personal "choices" are handed down by the collective. You're given your role, and you'll like it.
You'd think that would logically be the case, but there is no reason at all to let you or me hunt when game populations can be controlled through professional population management. There's no Constitutional protection for hunting either to limit a ban on possession of firearms for hunting.
The "greater good" could be said to remove all firearms from the population to protect people from the harm that can be done with them and pay for population control of deer and hogs. Then only the government would possess firearms, or their contractors, and a few citizens that were permitted to own a very restrictive set of firearms. This is the situation in Australia. Don't make the mistake of believing that hunting firearms can't be banned.
Deer_Freak
Member.
Virtually all guns have a military history. Only the breakdown single shot has no military history. The gun that barrack was shooting has a military history. The double barrel shotgun was used to secure fort walls, inside the fort and by wagon drivers. The bolt action is still used by the US military in various fashions.
The language of the AWB is so vague it is belittled by the people that she needs their support to get it out of committee. Neither Senator Feinstein nor her staff are prepared to explain how I am supposed to defend my family and livestock. I called Senator Hagan's staff to express my concerns. Hagan's staff told me to call Feinstein's staff for the answers and that make sure I mentioned they said to call the Feinstein camp. In the opinion of Hagan's staff if Senator Feinstein wrote the bill her staff should be prepared to answer commonly asked questions.
The language of the AWB is so vague it is belittled by the people that she needs their support to get it out of committee. Neither Senator Feinstein nor her staff are prepared to explain how I am supposed to defend my family and livestock. I called Senator Hagan's staff to express my concerns. Hagan's staff told me to call Feinstein's staff for the answers and that make sure I mentioned they said to call the Feinstein camp. In the opinion of Hagan's staff if Senator Feinstein wrote the bill her staff should be prepared to answer commonly asked questions.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked