My Democrat sister, hunters and sportsmen, and RKBA (Long).

L

Longshot

New member
I'll try to tie this all together as best as I can.

My sister has been moonlighting to help pay for her daughter's trip to Italy next summer. She and her husband live in rural Oregon...conservative country, and I was shocked in November to learn that she intended to vote for Gore. Her reasoning? Reaganomics. She blames Reagan for difficult economic times she had in the 80's and for high deficits, etc. I have tried to set her straight, explaining that the Cold War that crushed the Soviet threat came at a price (never mind that Clinton has negated much of those gains). Furthermore, she is a strong Catholic. I told her about a bumper sticker I saw that reads "You can't be a good Catholic and a good Democrat. Choose one." She was offended, and the conversation ended when I asked her to reconcile her social stances with those of Gore's. Nothing worked, and she voted for Plasticman.

So here's the kicker: Turns out she has been working at the gun shows for a friend who is a FFL dealer. Coincidentaly, the two shows she has worked are the first to be held since our measure 5 (similar to Colorado's bill) gun registration act passed here in Oregon.

I was happy to hear about her part-time job because I knew it would surround her with anti-Gore/Pro RKBA types who would complain about the low attendance and infringement. Who knows, maybe some of it would rub off on her?

Well, she told me that the attendees reminded her of something out of "Deliverance", and the debate was afoot. Mainly, she did not see the need for people to own semi-automatic weapons. I told her it was the Bill of Rights, not the Bill of Needs, and it was not up for debate. I didn't go into a militia tangent, but opted for a real life scenario instead in hopes of convincing her. I asked her that if she was alone at her farm and 3 or 4 scumbags attempted a home invasion, would she prefer a semi-auto, or the bolt-action .22 they keep out in the barn. She said she'd just call the police, and I couldn't break through her denial regarding the 15 minute response time.

Here's the crux: Her husband, a hunter, says he and his hunting friends can't understand the need for semi-auto's either. And, to top it off, I walked into a measure 5 debate at work today. Three firearms owners and a NRA hating Democrat ("The NRA scares Union members who hunt into voting for Republicans"). None of them could understand the need to own a semi-automatic rifle. None. They thought the measure was a good idea. And one of them is a former Marine like myself.

So don't let the reported number of gun owners fool you. And don't think that a fencesitter is only defined as a non-gun owner who might be convinced to support our side. This "Hunters and Sportsmen won't be affected" mantra of the Democrat party works. It works very, very well. We have a lot of work to do within what we often consider to be our own ranks.

Thanks for listening,

Longshot.
 
I too have encountered fellow gun owners who really wouldn't mind if Alpha Tango Foxtrot payed most of us a visit. They say we don't "need" semi-auto centerfires.
For some bizzare reason, these people always own over-under shotguns.
It's weird. I wouldn't mind having an over-under, but I'm afraid there's some chemicle in the high-dollar blueing on those things that will have an averse effect on my I.Q.




[Edited by Shin-Tao on 12-22-2000 at 11:31 AM]
 
My dad is the same way. He has been around guns his entire life, started hunting about the same time he could walk. He doesn't have a problem with guns, but really couldn't care if the government took them all away either. I don't understand it, probably never will either.
 
I knew there was a reason I never liked over & unders.

I have family members the same way, one of the most infuriating is one of the "if you don't have anything to hide" variety. Didn't vote Gore but has no concept of the .gov as anything but holy. I also get to hear the ol "you're a flake" line etc. It is this type of mentality that has given up every single right our forefathers fought for, unfortunately sooner or later I will be able to say "I told you so" but somehow I don't think I will find any pleasure in it at all.
 
What do you need hunting rifles for? Why do you *need* to hunt? Just go to the grocery store, you whacko!

:)
 
Here’s something that I wrote recently. Strictly speaking it is fiction, but it is based on and contains much of an actual conversation that I had with a friend a couple weeks ago.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I just found out that a guy that I know isn’t what he seems. This guy is an avid hunter and owns quite a few guns, more than me actually. I was just remarking to him that I got my 2001 NRA calendar in the mail and he said, "I should join them." I reminded him (again) that I had offered to pay for his first year’s dues if he would join, and he responded "I think I’ll wait and see who wins the election. If Gore wins, there’s no point in joining." :eek:

While I sat there, mouth agape, he adds, "Actually I wouldn’t have any problem registering all my guns, if that was the law." :eek: :eek:

Another harsh reminder that just because you own a gun, doesn’t mean you’re a -capital "G" - Gun Owner.

I asked him, "What’s the point of registration?"

"To keep people from committing crimes with guns." He stated, matter of factly.

To make a point, I folded a piece of paper and handed it to him, saying, "Here’s a list of all my guns and their serial numbers. Now how are you going to stop crime using the information I just gave you?" He replied that he could use it to trace a gun back to me if it was stolen and used in a crime. I told him, "OK, so after the crime, you can use it to give my stolen gun back to me, right?"

"No. So I can fine you for not storing your gun properly." He said.

- At this point I felt like crying - :(

I said, "Wait a minute, somebody steals a gun from me, uses it in a crime, and you want to fine me?!

"Well," He said, "I just think that registration would make people be more responsible with their guns and how they store them."

"Do you lock-up your guns now?" I asked.

"Yeah, sure."

"Me too. And there’s no registration now, so what difference would registration make?"

"Well, not everybody is as responsible with their guns as we are." He replied. "And if everybody knew that they’d get into trouble if they weren’t responsible with their guns, we’d have a lot less problems with guns.

- Problems with guns is what he said. Problems with crime is what he meant. He didn’t realize it, but I did. -

"What do you mean we’d have fewer problems with guns? Have you ever had a problem with your guns because they weren’t locked up?" I asked.

"I’m not talking about you and me, I’m talking about people who don’t know that you should lock up your guns when you’re not using them. Like that little girl in Michigan that got killed by her classmate."

"You mean the boy whose mother was shacked up with a crackhead? And he found the loaded gun hidden in a shoe box in his ‘uncle’s house?"

"Yeah, if he knew that he would get jail time if his guns weren’t unloaded and locked up, maybe that wouldn’t have happened." He shot back.

I told him, "Listen, that guy was a criminal and so was the mother for letting her kids live there in the first place. They were already breaking a boatload of laws. What difference would registration make to them? They’re criminals! By definition, they don’t follow the law."

"Well, I just think that there are a lot of cases where crimes could have been prevented if guns were properly stored and handled." He stated.

"Sure", I allowed, "But do you see my point that registration isn’t the means to achieve that? And you still haven’t told me how you’re going to prevent a crime with that list of my serial numbers."

"I guess registration isn’t the way to assure responsibility." He handed the paper back to me. "But there should be a law to make people be more careful with how they store their guns."

"The problem with that is you are putting the responsibility where it doesn’t belong."

"What do you mean?"

"If I live alone and want to keep a loaded gun in every room in my house what is it to you?" I queried.

"Someone could break in to your house, take a gun, and shoot my wife!"

"And I’m responsible for that somehow? How do you figure?"

"Well, if all your guns were locked up he couldn’t have shot her." He replied.

-- I took a deep breath. --

"Here’s the thing," I tried to calmly say, "There are two victims in the crime you just described. Me and your wife. I have had my home violated, and my property taken from me; and your wife was shot. What if the guy stole my filleting knife instead of a gun? Am I still at fault somehow?"

"But a knife isn’t as deadly as a gun!"

"But your wife is just as dead!" I spit back. "What’s the difference if he takes a pillow from me and smothers her? He’s the one responsible for his actions; not me, not my knife, not my pillow and not my gun! Your ‘safe-storage’ law just makes me responsible for someone else’s actions."

He was silent for a moment, so I went on.

"Look, you’re right about one thing. Something needs to be done to make people be more careful with how they store their guns. It’s just that a law isn’t the best means to that end."

"How else are you going to do it?" he asked.

"Education." I replied.

"Well, that sounds like a good idea, but how do you achieve it? There are a lot of gun owners who are ignorant and don’t want to learn."

"You’re right." I said, "What we need is an organization that can work to educate people on the safe storage and use of firearms. A group that can reach out to both gun owners and non-gun owners. A group that will educate kids, just like that DARE program teaches kids to stay off drugs, or SADD teaches about the dangers of drunk driving."

"We should start a group like that!" He said.

"Why reinvent the wheel?" I asked, "There’s already a group like that in existence, they’ve been around for more than a hundred years. We could just use their materials to help educate people instead. Do you want to join them?"

"Sure."

:)

Copyright 2000 by David J. Miller
All Rights Reserved
Permission to freely distribute is granted.


[Edited by TheBluesMan on 12-22-2000 at 01:55 PM]
 
Hunters - arggghhh. Hunting is as relevant to the RKBA is as billards. It's just a sport.

The RKBA is not a sport. In fact, there is a better case for banning hunting as inhumane than having guns for self-defense. You can eat tofu and not hurt animals. Dairy products can let you have cheese and with eggs, cheese omelettes.

Ban all guns useful for hunting. All telescopic sights.
All bullets made for animals larger than a person.

Guns are only to be used for people. Animals are sacred.

Oh, never mind.

Seriously, this is why folks puzzle over the 70,000,000 gun owners. They are not RKBA folks.
 
TheBluesMan,

Good points. A few months back, I was at a wedding in San Francisco. At the groom's house a couple of days before the ceremony, the famous NRA infomercial came on, with Chuck Heston preaching the gospel of gun ownership. Right away, I was politely going toe-to-toe with three anti-gunners who could do nothing more than regurgitate what they'd heard from the controlled media.

They supported registration. I asked them why, and one said that gun owners should be arrested if someone stole their gun and used it in a crime. My reply? I picked his car keys up off of the table. I explained that by his own standards, I now had the ability to throw him in jail. All I needed to do was go downstairs, hop in his Jetta, and aim it at the nearest pedestrian. He thought that was ridiculous, and I agreed that it was, but the car was registered in his name, right? It probably was a waste of time, but it made me feel better.
 
In the event that you meet a gun owner who beleives that no one should own a semi-automatic you need to switch tactics. Argue that no one should own a gun, not even a hunting rifle and that you in fact support the efforts of the democrats who try to take away all people's guns.....ALL OF THEM including his rifles and pistols and shotguns. Maybe that will get him thinking.

As far as I'm concerend, when they take away my semi-automatics I will switch to fight against the right to bear arms so as to make the conversion to a gunless society complete. In other words, if he won't fight for me, I won't fight for him. Let him get some of his own medicine.
 
Good call, onecoyote. What is the point of a semi? It makes shooting more convient and enjoyable, in terms of quality shooting a semi is not different than a bolt-action. During WWI all the armies used bolt-actions. Doesn't that make them a "dangerous weapon of war"? Better take 'em all away from those hunters before a war in the forests and hills takes place next deer season.
 
Germany outlaws K98 rifles as "weapons of war". By that standard, Dreyse needle gun wouldn't be kosher either, nor flintlocks. Add a scope and a "sniper rifle" is int he works. Use real-worlds examples to get to them.
 
Guess I'm not alone in my frustration with hunters. Of the four boys in our family, I'm the only one who never hunted. The oldest (63) had guns for years, including recently an SKS. Then, because of depression, he decided to get rid of them and is now riding me to get rid of mine. Another brother (57) still hunts and has some beautiful rifles from the fifties and sixties. Two years ago I had to pay for his membership in the NRA to get him involved to the meager extent that he is now.

Neighbors of mine who hunt regularly insist that nobody in government will ever try to take our guns away. These are macho guys who would pull your privates up through your throat if you insulted their wives, yet they willingly kneel before the lying representatives they voted for. I just dont' get it. True, pocketbook issues trump all in an election, but at some point educated people should be able to see the light.

On a brighter note, about 1.7 million of those folks _did_ see the light this year and joined the NRA. Incrementalism at its best.

Dick
 
Monkeyleg, I know some hunters like that. At first I figured that somehow hunters are really stupid. But the real solution to the dilemma is this. Because they never saw it in the past (confiscation) they figure it will never occur in the future. Imagine trying to convince a guy from Nicaragua about snow, or Eskimos about a rain forest. It is too far away from their experience to believe. That is why the gun bans in Aus., England, etc are useful to us. Those provide the examples that confiscation for any firearm can happen here, given complacency.
 
Not all hunters...

...but I know two just like your friend. The Bluesman,you did good.

Stay safe.
John
 
When bolt action a**holes get going, remind them that
Charles Whitman conducted one of the first modern
massacres with hunting guns.

Thus they should be banned!!!!

Also, scholars like Kleck and Lott predict that with gun bans, hunting guns will be cut down for concealment and produce more lethal guns in crimes.


Any hunter who isn't RKBA is the enemy as their existence gives a convenient cover story to dicks like Klinton and Gore who can say - we support legal sportsmen.

In fact, the NRA should fund a covert operation to ban hunting and hunting guns specifically - suggest only
BP and archery.
 
Bam Bam, Semi-autos WERE used in WW1 !

FWIW, I'm in to weird tidbits of useless information.

I was just reading an article this past week about some guy restoring his Winchester Mod 1910 in some magazine. The Win Mod 1910 was a clip-fed semi-auto rifle that itself was the outgrowth of the earlier Win Mods 1903, 1905 and 1907. Each model number also is indicative of the year of introduction. They only vary in caliber. The 1903 was a proprietory .22 cal round and fed through a tube in the buttstock, the others were .32 and .351 WSL (Winchester Self Loading) calibers respectively, and clip-fed. The 1910 was the most potent, but least produced member of the family, with a .401 WSL caliber. Therefore, we have had clip-fed semi-auto rifles around for almost a hundred years.

The article goes on to state that France used limited numbers of the Mod 1907 in both World Wars! The Mod 1907 was the most produced member of the family, and favored by law enforcement as a gun for prison guards. In fact, one was used by law enforcement in the gunfight that ended the careers of Bonnie and Clyde.

I have my father's old Mod 1910, with a low four-digit serial number (11xx), indicating it was produced that first year of production, in 1910. The 1910 was produced until the late '30's, and ammunition hasn't been manufactured by the biggies since the mid '50's. The gun is now basically a wall-hanger now, although it does have a following in certain pockets of the country like upstate New York and Michigan.

As an interesting aside, the .30 Carbine round was developed by Winchester at the Army's request for adoption in the proposed Carbine trials of the late '30's. In this case, the ammunition was developed before the gun itself! It is almost a duplicate of the .32WSL caliber except for bullet diameter. One of the proposed carbine designs that was not selected was basically a rebarreling of a stock Win Mod 1905, but this particular test gun was not supplied by Winchester but some other hopeful contractor!

There, now you know. (Probably more than you wanted to, eh? :D )
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top