Another hunter thinks guns are bad

I believe most of those "hunters, gun experts, etc" are shills for the anti gun crowd.

"Shill", a name originally used for casino employees who posed as gamblers.
 
I believe most of those "hunters, gun experts, etc" are shills for the anti gun crowd.
Click to expand...

While some may very well be, the majority of hunters are pro 2nd Amendment and pro-NRA. They just don't always agree with everything they say and do. Many times it's the candidates that NRA supports that do not match the hunters views on other things besides the 2nd Amendment that creates a discord. Many of those same politicians that firmly defend the 2nd Amendment are the first ones to throw public land and hunter access under the bus. Those same that preach gun rights are the ones that want to allow big Oil companies to drill on pristine wilderness areas, thus eliminating them forever. Our Governor that recently gave us the right to legally CWC has just pressured our DNR to sell undeveloped waterfront and public access to one of his major campaign contributors to develop into piers for condos. Again, something that is already in limited supply and now will be gone forever. While giving huge tax breaks to big business, he also wants to offset those deficits by selling off other public properties to those same big businesses. More hunting land and undeveloped shorelines gone forever. Ask a 50 year old hunter whether he wants to be able to go back to the same stand he's hunted for 40 years on opening day of deer season or if he wants to have a 10 round mag in a gun he has no place to use it. What do you think his answer will be. Ask a duck hunter whether he wants to set up his decoys in the same place as last year or not have to have a UBG check done on him next time he wins a gun at the D.U. banquet. Ask the fisherman who fishes from shore, whether he wants to continue to walk to his honeyhole or to be able to buy a fully auto rifle without a permit. Not everyone has a single agenda when it comes to life. Many of us have other decisions to make other than unlimited gun ownership. As I said before, we could and should have it both ways, but most politicians don't see it that way. They require us to make a choice, and many times that differs among us. Calling folk's names like "fudd" because of it, just drives them farther away from a cause that really matters to both.
 
Most of them are well aware that "assault weapons" are only the first step even if they are not interested in those guns themselves.
Click to expand...

I would even go so far as to say that most folks who use a $10K+ for sporting clays, etc. have at least one "assault rifle".

My point is that, by now, I really do not encounter any hunters or shotgunners who are out there demanding more restrictions on AR's, AK's or handguns. Most have been life members of the NRA longer than I have. Please, ask yourselves whether you have encountered someone like this in the last 10 or so years. So, if most of us here, rarely, if ever, encounter the hunter or shotgunner who is calling for bans on AR's or handguns, then who really are these people like the one in the OP's post? I suspect made up and manufactured by the anti-gun lobby.
 
My point is that, by now, I really do not encounter any hunters or shotgunners who are out there demanding more restrictions on AR's, AK's or handguns.
Click to expand...


I agree wholeheartedly. What I do see is a lot of hunters that are either indifferent to them, or are not concerned about losing their right to own one, because they don't own one. Similar to loud pipes on motorcycles. There is constantly a push to restrict the noise levels of the pipes on motorcycles. Those that have no interest in motorcycles are the loudest supporters of restrictions. Harley riders are the biggest group against restrictions. Why? Because they are the ones with the loud pipes. Goldwingers and BMW riders don't generally even get involved in the issue because it does not concern them. Does this mean the Goldwingers and BMW riders are anti-bike? No. Do they support the right of Harley riders to have loud pipes? Most do and a few don't, but, because it does not involve them or their bikes, they don't get actively involved with the issue. If the choice came down to either losing the right to loud pipes or the right to ride their favorite roads, what do you think they would do?
 
Buck, while I agree with you on the gun issue; I don't see the comparison to motorcycles and loud pipes. I ride a motorcycle and don't want to see any car or bike being permitted to run with straight pipes. It doesn't enhance performance (usually hurts performance) or safety, but it does hurt ears and bother people relaxing in their homes (i.e. me) who don't want to listen to motorcycle exhaust. A loud horn or even a horn attached to a sensor makes more sense than loud exhaust. It's not like I have a choice not to be around a motorcycle running straight pipes when it goes through my neighborhood.

Now, with "Assault Weapons" - they aren't hurting anyone; they can't possibly bother me on my own property (any more than any other type of gun); there's no harm to my health if my neighbor takes his Assault Weapon to the range every other day, or if someone shoots one out in the country.
 
buck.....it is obvious that you do NOT know about some of what you quote about......I was at the Wenatchee National Forests Roadless meetings. Those lands already had roads on them and the roads were and are needed for logging and fire prevention as well as recreational access. Deer and elk get accustomed to traffic. I encounter both every day I drive US 12 let alone Forest Service Roads.
 
Roadless Areas are those portions of Forest and BLM land that are currently not officially roaded, but may contain roads. Generally the areas have little or no legal access, roaded or not. The purpose of the designation was to study the areas for Congressional designation as a Wilderness Area. Roadless Areas not already designated as Wilderness is generally too small to function as a wilderness, too roaded to revert to wilderness, or otherwise not of wilderness character sufficient to warrant management required. The RAs not selected for Wilderness additions were supposed to be returned to multiple -use management, but this has become a political issue, with environmental groups considering them to be de facto wilderness and presenting them to the public as such.

Removal from RA status does not mean roads get built, it just means the land can be managed for uses other than wilderness. Wilderness status precludes uses other than recreation.
 
Last edited:
buck460XVR said:
Just as anyone old enough to buy a gun(and owns one) who doesn't understand the assault from the republicans on our hunting heritage is fairly stupid at this point.....
Click to expand...
What assault from the republicans on our hunting heritage?

When did it start? Is it over? Did I sleep through it?

I'm a shooter, and a Jeeper. The so-called "roadless area" protection was/is a lie. Especially in the west, there were millions of acres of more or less open space that were (and still are) criss-crossed with unimproved roads that were recreation opportunities for people like me, who enjoy the open space but who are too old or for other reasons can't hike twenty miles with a backpack to get there. Then one day, with a stroke of a pen, the federal government declared those millions of acres "roadless." They were NOT roadless -- but the government basically erased the roads from the maps and said we can no longer drive on them.

The fact is, in many cases this causes as much harm as the [very] occasional vehicular use, because when the roads aren't used and maintained, they wash out. The erosion is more damaging to the environment than the traffic.

Fly over the western U.S. and you can easily see that there are VERY few areas that are truly roadless. Putting on blinders and pretending that roads which have been there for a hundred years suddenly don't exist is foolish.
 
Last edited:
Doc Intredpid said:
In Seattle, Washington a law was recently passed by the City Council that established a $100 federal tax on all guns sold in the city, a .05 tax on each individual round of center fire ammunition sold in Seattle, and a .02 tax on each round of rimfire ammunition sold in Seattle.
Click to expand...
Minor nit to pick: The city of Seattle cannot impose a "federal" tax (or a state tax) on anything or anyone. It's a city tax.
 
Originally posted by hartcreek:

buck.....it is obvious that you do NOT know about some of what you quote about......I was at the Wenatchee National Forests Roadless meetings. Those lands already had roads on them and the roads were and are needed for logging and fire prevention as well as recreational access. Deer and elk get accustomed to traffic. I encounter both every day I drive US 12 let alone Forest Service Roads.
Click to expand...

Don't ever remember quoting anything about Wenatchee National Forest. Maybe you can refresh my memory. What does closing roads to vehicles have to do with hunting other than reducing access by motorized vehicles and improving the quality of a hunt? I bet for every Jeeper and off roader that was upset by the closing of the roads there and in other wilderness areas, there were 10 hunters, outdoors-men, hikers and wildlife viewers that applauded it. Public land is for everybody, not just a few. At least it wasn't exploited by Oil and Mining companies .
 
I see buck's points.
Like most voters, hunters are not one issue people. A lot of those other issues involve land use and access.

Additionally, we cannot deny that there are a portion of hunters who don't use those firearms that are at the eye of the current media hurricane. They don't see the problem with additional background checks or magazine restrictions. I'd bet new hunters (for stereotypical example: foodies who are more concerned about what side dish will be served with their elk rather than thinking about what caliber choices are available) who have not come from a 'gun' background would probably be in this group. They don't see these issues as being so overwhelmingly important. I get that. "NMP" Being shortsighted is an intrinsically human trait.

I think that everyone here bristles when that same new guy hunter goes out of their way to claim the moral high ground (and an imaginary majority) to take a stand against the second amendment rights of other bearers. It's one thing to just have other priorities, it's another to make a statement about the shoulds and coulds of what other gunowners should be allowed in "real life" society based on the fact that he or she happens to only "need" a particular type of firearm for their particular gun-related hobby.

If I made the statement that "Hey, I use a .22lr for biathlon. It's a sport based on military skills and training. No one in the military needs anything more than 22lr and 5 round magazines," I would be laughed at. It's frustrating that no one thinks to make the same "is there a real world reason for these items" litmus test of this writer's statements.

sorry, got off in the weeds.
 
I know it is trite, and overused, but literally, "The Second Amendment ain't about duck hunting", or any kind of hunting.

We have long recognized that sport hunting is just that, SPORT. Licenses are required, places and times are specified, equipment used is specified, etc.

Sport hunters perform a vital role in managing our wildlife. For one thing, they pay for a lot of it. I fully support all legal forms of hunting.

On the other hand, I cannot support a "my way is the only right way" about anything, especially what guns I should be ALLOWED to own, coming from a "HUNTER" or anyone else.
 
He hunts (or hunted) with a muzzle loader. And, he apparently objects to
Second Amendment extremists in the upper echelons of the National Rifle Association and in Congress who have no clue what the real purpose of a gun is. I would be letting them define me and my weapon.
Click to expand...

But makes no mention of ANTI Second Amendment extremists doing the same.

One more case of "what I like is good, what you like is bad, and you shouldn't have it."

I say "A pox upon thee, and thy opinion!"
:D
 
Its very easy to say schools should be gun free when you dont work in one or have kids in one and dont have to worry that they are pretty much a free target for bad guys. If you dont want teachers to carry then buck up and pay for metal detectors and armed guards. Otherwise let me protect myself and let my kids teachers protect them.
 
I think that all AR-15s and AK-47s should be turned in for a mandatory conversion to full auto only. That way rampage shooters will shoot up twice as much ammo and kill only half as many victims
But I doubt the lawmakers would even consider this proposal..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top