The Second Amendment ain't about wabbit huntin!.
Posted on 09/15/2004 12:05:56 PM PDT by TERMINATTOR
NRA insists hunters need more powerful weapons with higher rate of fire to stop vicious bunny attacks.
As a person raised in the Deep South, I grew up with hunting and guns. To say that "gun safety" was practiced in our home would be something of an understatement. My mother would not allow guns and ammo for them to be in the house at the same time. When you wanted to do any shooting, you had to purchase bullets on a per outing basis. Many are the amusing conversations I had with salesmen about buying individual bullets.
I've changed somewhat over the years, but I am by no means a duck squeezer. One of the high points of Christmas for me is the venison sausage my uncle whips up. If we were not meant to eat our tasty animal friends, God would have made them faster than a speeding bullet.
I also spent a year in the Army and eight in the National Guard, where I learned to call them not "guns" but "weapons". So I'm quite familiar with assault rifles. They were invented and produced with one purpose in mind: kill people. Specifically, to kill soldiers.
Which brings us to the crux of the matter. The assault weapon ban. For politicians it's political hay and that will certainly keep it in the news. Kerry will lambast Bush, and Bush will keep trying to pass the blame solely to Congress. The only reason I can see not to renew the ban is that some of our elected officials were given or promised something more important to them than past and future victims of assault weapon violence. Money, power, political longevity... whatever.
For the NRA it's some sort of moral stand; if I may be allowed to use that word in this context. Their argument is that criminals have back-alley ways of getting firearms and that if the government takes away semi-automatic weapons with 30-round magazines, pistol grips, flash-suppressors, folding stocks and bayonet attachments the nation will overnight turn into a police state/war-zone in which citizens most basic rights do not exist.
That's a long sentence, but if you break it up, it gives people time to think about it, and the NRA is wholeheartedly against that. In fact, it's hard not to laugh while saying it.
Having seen hunting and the military close up, I can confidently say that the two are not related. Never has a hunter been called upon to put thirty rounds into a rabbit in ten seconds while hiding the flash from his buddies so he can successfully leap out and bayonet them. The occasion just doesn't arise. I'm not even sure Ted Nugent could say that with a straight face.
That's my view. Private citizens simply don't need assault rifles. Period.
The view we ought to all be listening to, though, is that of the parents of the Columbine dead. And the surviving family members of victims of gang violence in LA. And... and... and.
I have trouble being amusing and sarcastic on this issue. It seems like such a no-brainer. A recent poll by the Annenberg Public Policy Center showed that 70% of Americans want an assault weapon ban. So what we have here is a case of less than one in three people setting policy for the rest of us. Or, really, the NRA setting policy for the rest of us. Or, really, only part of the NRA setting policy for the rest of us. I have family and acquaintances who are members and who are 100% for the ban.
So how in hell does this happen? How did the NRA lobby become so powerful? Are they threatening to mow congressmen down in the streets if they don't vote their way? Holding family pets for ransom? I truly don't know.
I do know this: If you and I don't make it clear, personally, to our congressmen where we stand on this; clear that their jobs are on the line; then we can partially blame ourselves for the next Columbine.
The Second Amendment ain't about wabbit huntin!.
who gives a flying *(*) what this idiot 'feels'???
Who is Randy Long, what is the CelebrityCafe.com, and why should I care about Leftist diatribe?
Hmmm, can't find in the 2nd amendment where it says our right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed beyond what some self-important cranio-rectally inverted academic decides what "private citizens ... need".
I can think of one instance.
We ain't talking about assault rifles moron, we are talking about semi-automatic civilian copies of fully automatic military rifles, get your facts straight then pop off.
So?
Did you send a comment?
Oh man! I forgot about that horrific attack!
Opinion noted and discarded. Thanks for playing!
where is the line though? rocket launchers, Nuclear weapons, hydrogen bombs, missle defense shields for everyone?
i don't know that the assault weapons ban is a good thing but I do think the line has to be drawn somewhere
They don't get it, do they? This isn't about rabbits. This is about the constitution.
The author doesn't realize that an AWB is another step to total confiscation. This is the objective.
Besides, any weapon used in an assault (e.g., O.J. and a knife) becomes an "assault weapon." What're you going to do? Outlaw them all?
That's the point!
Well, duh, we already have that.
What percentage of Americans support an assault-style weapons ban, where it is nothing more than a ban on cosmetic features?
NEED?!?!?!?!?!
Since when does this have anything to do with needs?
I agree that the second amendment ain't about hunting. Look up the Battle of Athens Tennessee and see why you average Joe Citizen needs assault weapons.
BTW, if I shoot you with an old fashioned Colt Peacemaker .45 Long Colt that doesn't have a detachable magazine or a flash hider, did I assault you?
Just wondering...
| Quote | where is the line though? rocket launchers, Nuclear weapons, hydrogen bombs, missle defense shields for everyone? |
"most people will never need more than 640K of RAM"
" AWW, Shut up Barney - just shut up! You beat everything, you know that?"
At the risk of causing the pansy-a$$ed author to wet himself, I'll be blunt:
The 2nd Amemndment isn't about killing animals - it's about killing people.
Aren't these twinks required to take civics and history any more?
You should have at a full gig of ammo at all times.
I support banning one kind of gun:
The kind that grabs its own ammo, loads itself, aims itself, and squeezes its own trigger. All others should be legal.
What SHOULD be banned in this country is a leftist, activist, panty-waist, bleeding heart, pinko, socialist judge who refuses to uphold the damn laws we already have on the books TO KEEP CRIMINALS BEHIND BARS OR STRAPPED TO A TABLE WITH A NEEDLE IN THEIR ARM OR IN AN ELECTRIC CHAIR!!!!
Can I get an "Amen" on THAT?!?!?!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.