[A_perfect_lady]

It's not the guns. It's the attitude of the hunter and action he took. If he can't control himself and refrain from physical violence against an unarmed person, maybe, just maybe, he doesn't need his precious firearm...

If he didn't use his gun, he showed all the restraint he needs to own a gun.

It sounds to me as though you have a bit of an attitude about guns, with that "precious firearm" remark. Maybe this whole thread is more about your feelings than about what actually happened.

[from occupied ga]

If he didn't use his gun

If it were a foxhunt (which it was) he wouldn't have had a gun anyway.

[IYAS9YAS]

My only attitude about guns is that there aren't enough of them in the hands of law-abiding people. I fully support property rights, gun ownership (have one, encourage others to get theirs) and concealed carry where possible. So, don't take words out of the context of the argument and try to show me as a grabber.

My point was, this guy was a moron for assaulting an unarmed female, regardless of whether she was tresspassing. In my eyes, his assault is far worse than her tresspassing.

The firearm statement was made in reference to those who look at any little thing to take away our rights. Sorry if I needed the sarcasm tag.

[IYAS9YAS]

If this was a case of the protesters tresspassing and assaulting the foxhunters, then running the film when they were retaliated against, then I think that the assault may have been justified. If the guy was indeed nailed with perfume (could have been anything with the greenie-weenies involved) and did indeed think he'd been gassed, I'd say the beating was justifiable. However, if they were standing there with signs or shouting at the hunters, they should have detained them and called the authorities.