Posted on 02/17/2003 5:43:46 AM PST by SJackson
"About the time that Daddy left to fight the big war/I saw my first pistol in the general store/In the general store, when I was thirteen/Thought it was the finest thing I ever had seen/So I asked if I could have one someday when I grew up/Mama dropped a dozen eggs, she really blew up/She really blew up and I didn't understand/Mama said the pistol is the Devil's right hand.''
Steve Earle's ''The Devil's Right Hand''
Ihunt. It's the most intense and rewarding thing I do in the outdoors.
To hunt, I own guns.
They are my most valued possessions.
When I was 13, Dad gave me the family .22 rifle as my most cherished Christmas gift. When I turned 18, my 12-gauge shotgun and my deer rifle were my first important life purchases.
The only thing I asked Dad to bequeath me in his will is an ancient, open-bore, single-shot, 12-gauge shotgun my Grandpa Bowman gave him as his first gun as a boy.
Guns come with meanings for me, come with stories and histories.
So I watch with more than passing interest when an anti-gun person such as Mayor Daley steps into the political arena with gun legislation.
The latest foray came Thursday.
My first thought was, "Oh, God, not again.''
Then I picked through the highlights.
As a hunter and human being, I agreed with almost all of them.
As hunters, we must learn to separate ourselves from the gun nuts, those who would oppose every firearm restriction. Otherwise, we'll be lumped in the crackpot pile.
*A ban on military-style, semi-automatic assault weapons. I absolutely agree. It should have been done years ago. The problem for hunters is the definition of assault rifles; otherwise, it in no way affects my right to own a shotgun or rifle for hunting.
*Restrict handgun purchases to one per person per month. For my money, you could ban handguns completely. That in no way affects my right to own a shotgun or rifle for hunting.
*Gun fingerprinting. I have no problem with that other than it is another governmental intrusion into our lives. It in no way affects my right to own a shotgun or rifle for hunting.
*Lengthening the waiting period for taking possession of a handgun from three days to 10. Hey, make it a month, a year, 10 years. It in no way affects my right to own a shotgun or rifle for hunting.
*Require annual background checks of those who hold Firearm Owners Identification Cards. I think that will be a logistical nightmare and should not be enacted for that reason. Otherwise, check all you want. It in no way affects my right to own a shotgun or rifle for hunting.
*Increase the cost of a FOID card. It annoys me. It will cost me. But it in no way affects my right to own a shotgun or rifle for hunting.
*Mandate background checks of people who buy firearms at gun shows. Absolutely. That should have been in place years ago. That in no way affects my right to own a shotgun or rifle for hunting.
*State licensing of gun dealers and a state database of gun information. Go ahead. I think it will be a logistical nightmare; otherwise, it in no way affects my right to own a shotgun or rifle for hunting.
*Increased penalty for secret compartments in vehicles for weapons. Throw the book at them. That in no way affects my right to own a shotgun or rifle for hunting.
Daley's proposals make sense. But then, I am a hunter who owns guns, not a gun nut. Guns don't mean more than life to me.
Dale Bowman can be reached at outdoordb@aol.com.
"Bowman's Outdoor Line'' is heard on "Outdoors with Mike Norris'' (3-4 p.m. Thursdays, 1280-AM).
If being ready to die for the cause was the issue, there would be no need for firearms. The issue is how many would be willing to kill.
The "shot heard round the world" was fired to prevent confiscation of arms by the government controlled army. Those who loved freedom more than life took up arms and fought the establishment.
Many accusations were made against David Koresh and the Branch Davidians. We will never know the extent to which any of those accusations were true because our government made these people the target of their disarmament agenda.
They fought and died. The outcome was: government 80 Davidians 4. The Davidians "won". There is no way that our government can sustain losses of 5 percent against an armed population of 80 million.
Mr. Bowman, I read your column in the Sun Times net version about how you are a hunter, own guns, but don't consider yourself a "gun-nut". I assure you, that the only gun nuts are those, like the Brady Bunch at the VPC, who are not reasonable when it comes to firearms. I am sure that you are sincere, but in my humble opinion, I think you are terribly misguided. A short review of the history of the Second Amendment should make it clear that that right is NOT about hunting, but about the people having the ability to resist tyranny and to defend the homeland.
That is what the Founder's intended,and that is why certain arms which you might not want to own are protected. I might remind you that you are playing right into the hands of those who would deny you and your grandchildren the freedom that so many Americans fought and died for over the last 225 years. And make no mistake, those enemies of freedom who you think are "reasonable" will be only too happy to ban your hunting arms right along with those so-called 'assault weapons'. Its only a matter of time: the Brady Bunch and most of the Democratic Party wants to ban and confiscate ALL firearms, including your precious family heirloom. Think about it.
45Auto
SR
What matters is Freedom.
"...to suggest that freedom fighters for that cause would meet a fate other than complete destruction is silly. You have no idea what kind of sh!t the military would unleash in the event of an armed resistance of RTKBA'ers.
The military, why I thought their objective was to uphold and defend the Constitution? Maybe you're thinking of the dept. of homeland security. Have you noted any historical account of Americans failing to take action against a tyrant that threatens their Freedom. When faced with the threat of death and anihilation, did they surrender?
"Are you going to hold people hostage and become terrorists?
Surely you jest! Tyrants hold people hostage and terrorize. For the same reasons they are peaceable citizens now, gun owners will no more become tyrants then they would armed robbers. The terrorizing will be done by the forces of the majority that traded their Freedom for promises of security.
" You would meet a losing fate worse than the Jews against the Nazis.
Not at all. Some recognized the threat and fled. Others covered their eyes and went meekly along with the program, because resistance was futile they thought and they'd be imprisoned, or killed for resisting.
" Tens of millions of Americans would be snitching on your every movement at every opportunity.
So? There's 30% that know that Freedom, rights and the truth are worth protecting. They gave us our Freedom once and they will fight to preserve it against the forces of darkness and the face of death.
" The government would put million-dollar ransoms on your head."
What ransoms were placed on the founding fathers? How were they swayed by it?
"The treasury would be opened up, sparing no expense, in destroying your resistance movement."
Who would expect anything different? They loose quite a bit of income though. They'll have to issue more bonds.
" We have so many more options than any other government-- ever-- that it's laughable to compare a resistance movements' successes elsewhere with those in the U.S.
Surrender is not an option. Once you have done that, you not only have abandoned your Freedom, fellows and the United States, you've lost your soul. Majority rule w/o regard for Freedom and rights is simply the tyranny of the majority.
"Panzers, anti-civil disobedience weapons ready to roll right this second and at a moment's notice
Scary...MOLON LABE!" And buying weapons from the North Koreans or paying off supply sergeants won't get you enough firepower to hang with the Pentagon."
Those that lie with OPs dogs get fleas.
Really? Then exactly who were the hostages?
The government wouldn't be so gentle? You mean they would kill me, my family, and my friends TWICE? Virtually everyone at Waco died.
When the time comes, the action will look more like the DC snipers, but multiplied by many hundreds and targetting those who continue to represent the illegitimate central government.
One primary target during the Revolution was those who chose to collect fees and taxes or those who were prepared to exercise force on behalf of the authorities. Postal service, Forest Service, National Park Service, police services... all of these are the people who will have to take sides. Such a revolution is not something that any of us should wish for, but do not doubt that there will be those who choose freedom over chains.
The old divide and conquer thang at work here folks.......More of the 1st amendment freedoms trying to kill the one thing that keeps presstitutes in business.....the 2nd amendment.
Stay Safe !
In the state in which I reside, hunting is a constitutionally protected right. So is fishing.
There's no meat.
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.