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).
The wording of your posts seem to encourage decent folks here to predict what they would do if the military attacked Americans. Nobody suggested anything close to this happening, except you.
Why?
I guess that's your way of figuring out here who would "die for the cause?"
More "bait?"
You are good at what you do, I'll give you that.
"You couldn't keep your activities secret enough to pull it off. "
I guess now that you have successfully introduced a scenario where the armed forces goes against the people, and you have successfully mangaged to identify people who have rose to your bait with what they might do, (kept the quotes, I'm sure) now you want to know how they will keep it secret.
Just to make it crystal clear, I seriously question you and your motives.
"False Premise: The purpose of the Second Amendment is to protect the right to use a gun to hunt.
"Truth: The purpose of the Second Amendment is to protect the right of the people to protect themselves from government."
Actually the 2A is about hunting. The right of the people not to be endangered or oppressed by a tyrannical government implies that when government becomes overbearing and tyrannical, it is open season on government, no tags required.
the SECOND AMENDMENT is NOT about hunting ducks, but rather hunting TYRANTS!
FRee dixie,sw
I agree with him.
However I would not prohibit the purchase or possession of AR-15's or Ak-47's, but I would up the age to 25 years old. You see, I've been hunting since I was a very little kid, I served 6 years in the Army and have shot everything from M-14's, M-16's, to real BAR's. (they are all inferior to a quality hunting rifle). In that time I have noticed the maturity of gun owners can be predicted by their choice of firearm.
Sorry, but WE are responsible for alot, not all, but a lot, of our own problems.
wish I'd said that...
yup
Will we believe those who assure us that the police officer will shield us from the criminal?
Yup, again; sorry to say...
Yes, it is unfortunate, that some sport shooters are like that.
Most realize that their guns could be next. See why the Amateur Trapshooting Assocation is not moving to Illinois here
Evidently his family did not learn much from the Third Reich's gun control---and its results??
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.