CNN did balanced report on pig hunting last night

Status
Not open for further replies.
I agree that defending the "sporting purpose" is walking into a trap, but this report was fair within it's limited scope.
Click to expand...

There wasn't any trap on the program. Even if you think there was, the fact that the hunter answered the query so well was a real coup. As for defending for a sporting purpose, the context of the show wasn't about home defense. Besides, hunters using AR15s often have to do this with the traditional bolt gun hunters who think AR15s are novelty military style rifles misapplied to slaughtering animals. I thought that from that standpoint, the hunter clearly explained that while he could use a bolt gun, he would not be as effective. There are still lots of Jim Zumbo (before he saw the light) types around still who fell AR15s have no place in the hunting world.
 
Besides, hunters using AR15s often have to do this with the traditional bolt gun hunters who think AR15s are novelty military style rifles misapplied to slaughtering animals.
Click to expand...

Hell...far as that goes hunters even rag on other hunters for hunting in a different style then they do. I.E. stand hunting versus still hunting...hunting over feeders versus hunting over a corn field...short distance shooting versus long distance shooting, etc.

Sometimes we are our own worse enemy. :(

Never the less, just because CNN aired this doesn't give me a warm and fuzzy feeling about CNN's history of past biased reporting. Especially the last eight years.
Nor does it give me any hope they will be less biased in the future.

Just waiting on the hammer to fall on this positive AR vid. If not by CNN by one of their anti gun affiliates.
 
Last edited:
To me, it was not pro gun. At best, it was neutral. The hunter was pro-gun, but to me the general feel of the segment made him appear a bit of an odd ball.
 
I own an AR 15 and I hunt, but not with an AR 15. To each his own I suppose. My point was that defending the sporting use of an AR is taking on a battle without the constitution behind you. I have no idea why this is not clearly understood.
 
The hunter was pro-gun, but to me the general feel of the segment made him appear a bit of an odd ball.
Click to expand...

He is a bit of an odd ball, LOL, but very well spoken. After all, not too many people make a living working nights in a vehicle labeled 'HAMBULANCE' and hunting hogs as a commercial guides. There are very few people in the US with similar jobs. He isn't the Wayne LaPierre-type (but most gun owners aren't either), but he handled the reporter like a pro.
 
My point was that defending the sporting use of an AR is taking on a battle without the constitution behind you.
Click to expand...


Funny....Dick Metcalf does it every month in his column "Modern Sporting Rifles" that runs in Guns and Ammo magazine. He also defends and promotes its use for hunting regularly on their TV show. In both of the examples tho, both Metcalf and the "Hambulance" driver are more validating the use of ARs for hunting than defending them for that purpose. No one here is claiming that hunting is the ONLY legitimate reason one owns a AR, just that is is ONE of those legitimate reasons. No one here is claiming the 2nd Amendment refers only to hunting firearms, but it certainly applies to them also. Same kinda goes for handguns. Overall, the majority of handguns owned in America have never been shot at a game animal, but hunting still is a valid reason to own one.
 
We expect the shooter to defend or quantify his weapon of choice...

Ya'll are talking about the shooter driving the "hambulance" but what needs noted is that the "reporter", Cooper or CNN could have edited the report to make the feral hog shooter and farmers to look like crazed freaks and the AR platform the EVIL tool they wield...

Yet they showed the rifle, the high cap mags and the shooter as upstanding tools used in the fight to help eradicate or minimize the feral hog issue...

Brent
 
It seems to me that this is a rebuttal to the argument that "nobody needs more than X# of rounds to hunt." If you're going to get that angry at every moderately pro-gun argument that doesn't directly relate to the second amendment, your blood pressure should probably be checked frequently. It talked about a hunter using a semi-automatic, high capacity, multiple projectile, people killing, barrel shrouded spray fire yadda yadda firearm to responsibly take feral animals that are causing damage. No children were injured in the making of that film. Maybe CNN is attempting to get a little credibility back? And I would imagine more antis watch CNN than most other stations (well maybe MSNBC), so maybe this should be taken at face value, rather than looking for the Nazi disarmament conspiracy behind a story on hog hunting.
 
My point was that defending the sporting use of an AR is taking on a battle without the constitution behind you. I have no idea why this is not clearly understood.
Click to expand...

Funny, he clearly explained his choice of gear without the need for invoking the Constitution.
 
The point is not what we "need or do not need." The point is what The Constitution says we have the right to have. The anti-gunners are backing us into need based right to own weapons. We will lose if we let them set the framework for the debate on their terms.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top