Hunters need to separate themselves from gun nuts

Thompson Center rules!

Yup, and they tried to ban those too, California I think.

The second amendment is as much about hunting as the first amendment is about playing Scrabble.

Oops, forgot.

UNITED STATES, PETITIONER v. THOMPSON/ CENTER ARMS COMPANY

This was the difficult issue presented by this case, and its resolution, for me, is dispositive, as respondent Thompson/Center concedes that it manufactures and distributes together a collection of parts that may be readily assembled into a short barreled rifle
Justice White, Justice Blackmun

Duh! Should have been "the fact that a percentage of the military would not fight against the civilian population."

**Message Sent**

Dear Mr. Bowman,

Your article struck a chord with me. I grew up in Van Etten, NY. My first gun was a 12-guage single shot Remington with hard sights. I was 15 and Van Etten is a rural community. "Bucolic" describes the small farming town perfectly.

I went to Boston University and transferred out as soon as possible. I've spent time now in several cities and several states. Buffalo, NY, Erie, PA, Winston-Salem, NC, Chesapeake, VA, as well as others. The gun laws vary in each state and each state has people who claim to only want guns for hunting as well as those people who insist on them for what they say is the "intended purpose" for having a right to own firearms. Throughout that time I've come in contact with both sides of the argument. It's absolutely necessary to find out what the laws are when moving, even if all you want to do is keep your hunting rifle.

I'd ask you to try asking people who oppose guns where their limits are when you consider the things you support. My own questioning has led me to feel discouraged. People who oppose gun ownership don't have any limits to what they'll do. The questioning should outline or reiterate the gun control proposal they claim they want and then ask what they'll do if it doesn't work. I'm a country boy, if something doesn't work, you get rid of it in favor of something that does work, and if nothing works, you learn to deal with it.

When I moved back to NY, I suddenly discovered that the one gift that I most appreciated for it's thoughtfulness and sentimental value was illegal without joining up on a list. That's not right. It assumes that I'm guilty of a crime before I've done anything. There is no compromise, of course, so I left my shotgun behind.

I'd like to do a rundown on some of the things you listed because you seem to have been mislead by someone along the way:

*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.

"Military-style" is a cosmetic definition of a gun. A ban on them *was* done years ago. The problem is, first, it's only the appearance that's been outlawed, and second, it does include several shotguns or rifles...based on that appearance or some accessories. Worse, they aren't used in crimes in any significant numbers. However, it will take away from you any semi-automatic rifles you have as well as any old shotguns that can handle an arbitrarily determined number of shells. Which means they'll come for my single-shot last, but they'll probably still come for it.

*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.

Restricting the number of handgun purchases doesn't do a damned thing about anything. I'm not even sure what the goal of such a thing is supposed to be. However, banning handguns completely only ensures that any legal rifles or shotguns with shorter barrels will be next. Criminals don't care about it anyway, they can just smuggle them in with the tons of drugs that reach our shores each day.

*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.

Gun fingerprinting just puts your name on a list. Though it might be useful for a political hack to use it for punishing gun owners. It actualy does affect your right to own a shotgun or a rifle for hunting. You'll have to make time to get the rifle legal because it'll need to be fingerprinted once every so few uses and cleanings. The shotgun might be made illegal because it's impossible to fingerprint them. More, criminals aren't going to use a gun that will be traced back to themselves. It'll be traced to the poor schmuck it was stolen from and he'll be held liable for it's theft and consequent use in a crime.

*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.

Waiting periods have effectively killed several people by denying them the ability to own a gun when the people concerned knew they were threatened with death. If it "works" for handguns, there's no reason it won't be applied to your shotgun or rifle.

*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.

*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.

It will, as you can see in Massachusettes and Maryland, restrictions and regulations on Firearm Owner Identification Cards have been raised to the extent that gun dealers have left. So both the cost and availability of shotguns and rifles will be altered for the worse. The Law of Supply and Demand tells us it'll cost you much more than you expect.

*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.

This little ditty has been used to disallow the very method by which you received your first gun. So, this would definitely affect your ability to own a shotgun or a rifle. That's right, gifts, exchanges with the neighbors and friends have been regulated as "gun shows". This more than anything else would have kept you out of the fields.

*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.

This, along with all the other things you support, will impact your life in a million different ways. What is their purpose? If that purpose is not fulfilled will they be repealed or removed?

I'm afraid sir, that you've been caught by a purposeful tactic used to divide people against themselves. It's classic "Laws for Thee but Not for Me" thinking. However, because the purpose of gun control laws are not the proposed purposes none of these laws are removed or repealed except by those who have recognized the pattern.

When your rifle and shotgun "for hunting" are outlawed, will that make you a gun nut or will you recognize the people who have fooled you to their incremental agenda concerning their own phobia's about firearms are the true "gun nuts".

=Maelstrom=

--

[For education and discussion purposes only as they contribute to political debate]

Effective December 15, 1791 Articles in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution. PREAMBLE The conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution. The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) http://www.archives.gov/exhibit_hall/charters_of_freedom/bill_of_rights/preamble.html

You have no idea what kind of sh!t the military would unleash in the event of an armed resistance of RTKBA'ers. Are you going to hold people hostage and become terrorists?

It is clear that your view of a "militia uprising" consists of a small band of outlaws pursued by a vast Federal Government. That is a rather narrow view.

While the Revolutionary War was fought by only 15 percent of our citizens, 15 percent of today's our population would be 45 million.

In my vision of "a check on tyrannical government," I can't see going to ground unless it is as obvious as the nose on your face, and we would have those 45 million acting in concert. That would be the only cause serious enough to attempt to throw off the government.

"I thought the Subaru Forester was the Official Petroleum-Squandering But Regrettably Necessary Motor Vehicle of gay, lesbian, bisexual, transexual, transgender, and just plain confused persons everywhere."

I stand corrected. You can plainly see how long it has been since I've been to Madison. Old Swedish cars were in vogue when? Mid 80's, early 90's?

A gun nut is someone who seeks to pass regulations on firearms based on purely emotional reasons.

*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.

When the definition of "assault rifles" all of a sudden includes this idiot's .30-30 lever action or .30-06 bolt action, I'd imagine the "gun nut" crowd will cease to be as nutty.

"A gun nut is someone who seeks to pass regulations on firearms"

????? Thank God I'm not a gun nut! I fight intellectually, politically and emotionally to stop passing regulations.

Then I picked through the highlights. As a hunter and human being, I agreed with almost all of them.

What a moron.

I wonder what they'll say when he is *forced* to trade in all his guns and take up bowhunting.

I am a gun nut and I don't have a gun in my house. But if the situation was right I'd have 20+. This guy just wants to take peoples guns away, he lives to close to the Maple border don't-cha know.

He won't say a word, as that would be a violation of the McCain-Feingold Incumbent Protection Act. Which he probably also supported.

So, the only legitimate use of a firearm is hunting?

I had no idea that the 2nd, and our founding fathers' concern for our personal safety, was saving ourselves from raging deer.

Pardon me if I correct you comment.

I wonder what they'll say when he is *forced* to ~~trade~~ turn in all his guns and take up bowhunting.

A homeless man in Chicago was randomly murdered with a crossbow in a driveby a few years ago. I'm sure he'll support bow control. After all, Britain is considering knife control as we speak.

I had no idea that the 2nd, and our founding fathers' concern for our personal safety, was saving ourselves from raging deer.

If there were as many deer around then as today, maybe they would have thought of it. Deer-horse collisions just weren't a big issue :>)

"I am a gun nut and I don't have a gun in my house"

Mrs. Ches' definition of gun nut is someone who will leave work early, go to the range and enjoy themselves putting lead into paper and engaging in political discussions while justifying spending large amounts of money on new weapons because it's a better investment than the stock market. She just might be right.

Correction duly noted!

I know, bow control would be next. After all it's just as deadly and is naturally a silenced weapon.