Hunters need to separate themselves from gun nuts

Chicago Sun Times ^ | 2-17-03 | DALE BOWMAN

[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).

[ninenot]

The right to own guns is not restricted due to "maturity." The right to own an AR-15 is inalienable, and does NOT depend on some psychobabbler's opinion of "maturity."

It's not likely you could define "maturity" all that well, anyway. But if you really think you can, you can run for office as a Democrat. They have a lot of people who think for others...such as you.

[elbucko]

The right to own an AR-15 is inalienable,

No it's not.

The right to keep and bear arms is, "inalienable". There is a difference. The word "inalienable is not a synonym for "absolute". Some of you "Neo- pro-gunners have come late to the discussion with only half a brain (as well as half-grown-up). In your case, with your attitude, I don't think you should have an AR-15 (and before you puff up your, "My gun is bigger than yours!" muscle, I had to use an M-16, which by the way, I thought inferior to an M-14). I might allow you a revolver, which in the right hands, is plenty of gun.

As for being a Democrat, FYI, I was a young Republican for Goldwater and contributed as much money as I could and campaigned a great deal for Ronald Reagan. I don't think you have the experience or credentials to question my loyalty to the Republican Cause, the Constitution or the 2nd Amendment.

I stand by my "maturity" remark. There are a lot of persons at the range with AR's, Sk's and 14 rnd. Glock's that I would not go hunting with or share a foxhole.

The reason the press has coined the sobriquet, "Gun-nut", is because there are now quite a few "squirrels" in the firearm club.

Those of you who know your guns, know that these "squirrels" are around and doing both the hunter and RKBA'er a lot of harm. Those of you that are these squirrels, know who you are and protest when you're caught being squirrely (you're usually arrested too).

[2nd_Amendment_Defender]

We gun nuts owns thousands of firearms like these. Scary? Not to me. I think it is very scary when I see a B.A.T.F. Agent with one of these.

[ninenot]

OK, credentials: I, too, had to use the M-16 and agree with you that the M-14 was superior--especially since the 16's we used really did not like sand, dirt, humidity, or jelly rolls.

As to inalienable: my use of the term was imprecise. The right to self-defense (part of the right to life) is inalienable. Following from this is the right to utilize whatever is necessary for such self-defense. ALSO following from this right is the right (also inalienable) to appropriate OFFENSIVE conduct, albeit much more circumscribed. This corollary, BTW, is the one GWB is using to justify our impending cleanup of Iraq's gummint.

In essence, your claim that there is no "right" to an AR15 is only correct ASSUMING that there is another, more appropriate, weapon available; and in the case of (much less likely) required OFFENSIVE actions, your logic denying the use of an AR is invalid, as the AR (or .30-06) is a far better offensive weapon than any 6-gun.

As to the 'lacking maturity' argument you posit: until there is some reliable methodology of determining 'maturity,' I am afraid that we will have to defer the question. Although I have also had reservations about some people's attitudes about usage of guns, I have NEVER encountered an individual who has recklessly abused the privilege. BY FAR, the most "reckless disregard" is encountered from criminals.

A good understanding of the moral imperatives in weapons usage is still promulgated by GOA, NRA, and Jeff Cooper, although rarely termed as "moral instruction."

While I grant that mistakes can and will be made, it is not within our ken to discern "maturity." As a result, regardless of the potential for regrettable accidents, such a concept cannot be applied as a limitation on the "right to keep and bear arms."

Your court.

[elbucko]

Your court.

OK. Check mail. Regards.

[packrat01]

neither me nor mine, if it's within our limited power.

There is no "Oath of Un-Enlistment"...

Discharge from service, but the oath sticks!

[packrat01]

Maturity is not an age or an emotion, it's a state of mind. Your state of mind is questionable. You would dare to limit my kids availability of the best tool for the job, based on their age?

Shameful elitist.

[elbucko]

You would dare to limit my kids availability of the best tool for the job, based on their age?

I beg your pardon! I resent that your accusation of setting age limits for certain activities is "Elitist". Where do you live? Does your state permit 10 year olds to drive alone on public highways? Would you your 10yr. old to drive your truck on the highway?

On your sons 16th. birthday would you just hand him the keys to a new Corvette with a case of "Jack Daniels" in the trunk? Of course not. Why don't we just let 15yr. olds vote?

Age limitations are used extensively in public law and in our own family "private law", as in; "I wouldn't let your 18 year old son date my 15 yr. old daughter". Do you have a problem with that? It's not new and it's not elitist.

What you allow your "kids" to do or have is your own business. What really does bother me is we have a lot of adults with very low levels of emotional maturity that are affecting my enjoyment of lawful and Constitutionally protected activities.

If you have a problem with that, get over it, because that's my opinion.