In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Options
Sportsmen and Hunters......
wsfiredude
Member Posts: 7,769 ✭✭✭
Rant on...
I cringe everytime I hear this phrase uttered, and it seems a lot of folks that 'supposedly' support the RTKBA use it rather frequently, including McCain/Palin and the NRA.
This cliche was borne out of anti-liberty propaganda, and was/is used extensively by liberals to pidgeonhole all gun owners into one of two groups; sportsmen or hunters.
I hunt and I target shoot, but dammit, the RTKBA is not a 'sportsman' right, it's not a 'hunter' right, it is a CITIZEN right.
The 'sportsmen and hunters' cliche is nothing more than an attempt to deviate from the true meaning of the 2nd Amendment.
[:(!][:(!][:(!][:(!][:(!][:(!][:(!][:(!][:(!][:(!][:(!][:(!][:(!][:(!]
Rant off.
I cringe everytime I hear this phrase uttered, and it seems a lot of folks that 'supposedly' support the RTKBA use it rather frequently, including McCain/Palin and the NRA.
This cliche was borne out of anti-liberty propaganda, and was/is used extensively by liberals to pidgeonhole all gun owners into one of two groups; sportsmen or hunters.
I hunt and I target shoot, but dammit, the RTKBA is not a 'sportsman' right, it's not a 'hunter' right, it is a CITIZEN right.
The 'sportsmen and hunters' cliche is nothing more than an attempt to deviate from the true meaning of the 2nd Amendment.
[:(!][:(!][:(!][:(!][:(!][:(!][:(!][:(!][:(!][:(!][:(!][:(!][:(!][:(!]
Rant off.
Comments
This leads me to think what will be the next step toward total elimination of all firearms to the general citizens?
Banning ammunition? Including any arrest into the NICS clause?
Rant on...
I cringe everytime I hear this phrase uttered, and it seems a lot of folks that 'supposedly' support the RTKBA use it rather frequently, including McCain/Palin and the NRA.
This cliche was borne out of anti-liberty propaganda, and was/is used extensively by liberals to pidgeonhole all gun owners into one of two groups; sportsmen or hunters.
I hunt and I target shoot, but dammit, the RTKBA is not a 'sportsman' right, it's not a 'hunter' right, it is a CITIZEN right.
The 'sportsmen and hunters' cliche is nothing more than an attempt to deviate from the true meaning of the 2nd Amendment.
[:(!][:(!][:(!][:(!][:(!][:(!][:(!][:(!][:(!][:(!][:(!][:(!][:(!][:(!]
Rant off.
Blinders anyone? I have a pair for sale, CHEAP![}:)]
You better read it. Youwere right, you are not wearing blinders, you are wearing a blindfold.
http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/165476.pdf
This report will be conservative in it's numbers due to the fact that MANY folks are simply not stupid enough to answer the questions from a poll from the government honestly. But even still, it blows your beliefs out of the water.
I am sure you are done posting on this subject so I will bid you farewell.
I imagine the numbers are where you find them. By your own numbers then, there are 220 million non-gun owners in America. Are you saying that a politician can just ignore them?
It isn't about ignoring them, or not.
It IS about adhering to the US Constitution and its Bill of Rights, DESPITE the "opinions", "fears", "desires" or "collective wisdom" of the "non-gun owners".
Any changes must be made through the amendment process, spelled out in the Constitution itself.
It is as simple as that.
Of course, one would have to have a basic understanding of our Constitutional Republic, rather than a mistaken belief that America is a "democracy", before one could grasp this simple concept.[;)]
As all polls have beared out since 1955, at least half of all Americans who legally can own fireams, do. Now, when you take into account that the remaining monority while not owning guns, are not 100% opposed to gunownership, the minority gets smaller. Again, blown out of the water. Want to continue?
ORRRRRRR, could it be that McCain / Palen, being the most progun of our choices for president have to use this phrase to soften the issue of gun ownership to the 275 million Americans who DONT own firearms. Maybe thats why they call gun owners Sportsman and Hunters.
steve45:
Do you agree with this soft-sell? I find it disturbing for two reasons.
1. By dismissing the true meaning of the 2nd, we find ourselves with a populace who are conditioned to accept the invincibility of the government. Emphasizing that the 2nd is put in place to preserve the security of a free state immediately suggests a military or para-military goal. If this goal is reduced to hunters and sportsmen, the populace is being told that the security of our freedom resides in the hands of government and government only.
2. The AWB of the 90s is a direct result of the hunters and sportsmen mentality. We have all heard the endless number of times that 'There is no hunting or sporting use for _______.' This phase, used by supposed supporters of the 2nd, is also used by avowed anti-second amendment advocates in attempts to limit and deny the availability of certain types of firearms on many levels of government.
We will continue on the path to more restrictions as this mindset is promoted. Even if McCain is actually more pro-gun than is Obama, he, and all of those that push this phraseology, are doing long-term damage to the inherent right to protect ourselves from tyranny, as fewer and fewer of our children will ever be exposed to the true purpose of the 2nd Amendment.
Brad Steele
Your opinion, not mine. Continue kneeling.
Exactly!! Calling them "Sportsmen" or "Hunters" is just more mealy-mouth liberal speak. Hows about calling them what they are firearms owning/packing American Citizens?
Don, I agree that there is a bias there. However if a candidate were in a national debate and answered like this could he be elected. (Moderator) "Mr Smith, what are your views on the second amendment?" (Mr Smith) "Well I would follow the second amendment to the letter. I dont believe there should be any Government restrictions at all on firearms. No background checks, no records, and no Government restrictions on the type of weapons either." (Mod) "With no records would'nt it be easy for a unscrupulous dealer to sell weapons to criminals, minor children, illegal aliens, the mentally insane, drug dealers and others." (Mr Smith)"Yes I suppose so. But I would hope that would'nt happen our Constitution and Bill of Rights are clear. The Federal Government is prohibited from infringing on the RTKBA, period. Nothing about this preclusion, however, precludes the legislative branch from making law that sanction, or punish a specific "Bad-Act"." You see, Mr. Moderator, America's Constitutional Republic was founded on and with the Principals of Individualism in mind. As such, collective policy, legislation and law, which has the intent or effect of "prohibition" of "potential" individual conduct or action, well, that is diametrically opposite the Ideals of The Republic. (Mod) "And were just not talking rifles and pistols here but machine guns, rocket propelled grenades, mortars, explosives, or other heavy weapons as well?" (Mr. Smith) "Yes of course, thats the way the second amendment reads and the exact way the founders intended it. Again, I must draw your attention back to the concept and necessary policy of sanction, or punishment for a specific "Bad-Act", rather than the attempt at "prohibition" of certain tools and inanimate objects. One would think that the concept of "prohibition" would have become clear, reference the prohibition of alcohol. At least in that instance, a Constitutional Amendment was passed, as the Constitution demands, rather than this current "malum prohibitum" legislative push. The bottom-line is that, thats the price of freedom there is a certain risk associated with living in a truly free-society. However, that risk can certainly and surely be minimized by strict accountability for the commission of "Bad-Acts". What a concept, huh?".
I know this is a little far fetched, so please humor me on the dialoge. My question is this. Is the non-gun owning public going to vote for this guy?
I could go on, but you get the idea.
Wanna play with a hypothetical debate, where the moderator is a constitutionalist and the candidate being questioned is a collectivist/"gun-fearer/prohibitor"?
I can sure make the argument, or draw a similar conclusion, that those watching the debate would not want to vote for Mr. "gun-fearer/prohibitor"
Any debate can be framed with an eye on bolstering your point.
Our Founding Fathers thought enough of this Country and the Constitution to refer to us as People of a Militia that have the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms which shall not be infringed by anyone domestic or foreign, so we don't want to be called "sportsman or hunters or any other partial description" as that is already granted to us and more and is really just ignorant redundancy on the part of people who do not understand what the Constitution means and only half recognize only part of what we are and what our rights mean; we are citizens of this Country not just some ignorant civilians that don't know or care about their Constitutional Rights and get their beliefs from the internet or hollywood.
Those are natural rights. There's no such thing as a constitutional right (all depending on your view of the world of course). As soon as you have a legal document granting rights, these "rights" cease being rights and become privileges.
No argument on anything else from me.
It is my understanding that the BOR is simply acknowledgment (not granting of)of God given(Natural) rights, just to let the government know they hold no power over that which God has given. I don't see how it then becomes a privelege just because it is recorded on paper.
Hey now rock, let's not go down that road again. I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth, I was commenting on what I perceived as your POV, based on how your statement made sense to me. I am often wrong in my perception, and I often type something that fails to make the point I wanted to as well.
I understand. Just clarifying, though, and I am not being confrontational with you, I thought it was pretty clear, of course, I might be wrong on this, that what I said was that, imnsho, rights enumerated in BOR aren't constitutional but natural. Point being that once they become constitutional, we're walking a fine line of lawyer speak that somehow some document is there to grant rights rather than protect them. I hope I am expressing my thoughts clearer this time. [:)]
I imagine the numbers are where you find them. By your own numbers then, there are 220 million non-gun owners in America. Are you saying that a politician can just ignore them?
Add one more to that. My son will become a firearms owner come christmas time.[:)]
I will guess that the trouble making little troll types on the forums are teen to early 20's and live at home and hide behind their parents little computer where they can tell alot of little delusional stories and sling their little insults and threats and such, just like the wiggers characterized in Weird Al Yankovic's song 'I'm a Wigga'; because if not then there sure are alot of them that act like it.
quote:Originally posted by Hunter Mag
Add one more to that. My son will become a firearms owner come christmas time.[:)]
That is always good to hear especially the fact that he will have a good teacher not only in safety and skills, but in the ideals of 2A.
Without it the other nine amendments mean nothing![V]
Sportsman/hunters/shooters benefit from it, and if they enjoy their recreational use of it they too must support it.[8D]
You have part of it right;
Why is it so very difficult for you to say.." The Second Amendment is the club with which to beat tyrants to death with... " ???
Why is it so very difficult for you to say.." The Second Amendment is the club with which to beat tyrants to death with... " ???
Yeah, now the party is started.
Sportsman/hunters/shooters benefit from it, and if they enjoy their recreational use of it they too must support it.
True, Jim, but one does not have to be a sportsman or hunter to exercise his RTKBA. Some gun owners are neither sportsmen or hunters, only citizens that exercise their RTKBA because they do not wish to become a slave.
"Sports" are a trivial part of life. They are meaningless.
By allowing the enemy to place weapons and the access to same on the exact same plane as something meaningless in the scheme of things, they are able to marginalize the single most important tool we have at our disposal to maintain Liberty.
The devotion many people have to 'sports'...and the utter contempt for the Constitution... is a fairly good barometer into the sickness of our times.
The NRA, by the way, back in the Ninties bought into the 'sporting use' nonsense.
The Second never WAS about 'sporting use'..it was...and is...about killing tyrants.
By allowing the enemy to place weapons and the access to same on the exact same plane as something meaningless in the scheme of things, they are able to marginalize the single most important tool we have at our disposal to maintain Liberty. The devotion many people have to 'sports'...and the utter contempt for the Constitution... is a fairly good barometer into the sickness of our times. The NRA, by the way, back in the Ninties bought into the 'sporting use' nonsense. The Second never WAS about 'sporting use'..it was...and is...about killing tyrants.
Well said Highball.
I believe you have misinterpreted the OP.
The point being made was that ALL gun owners have been cast into one of two categories, 'sportsmen' or 'hunters'. This plot, by design, was meant to corrupt folks into thinking that the 2nd Amendment was written only to protect the rights of 'sportsmen' and 'hunters'. Unfortunately, this sinister plan has worked, as some gun owners and organizations have bought into that philosophy.
As has already been stated in this thread by some fine men, the 2nd Amendment is not about hunting deer. It is not about competitive shooting. It is not about carrying a concealed pistol or revolver to effect your defense against criminals. The 2nd Amendment, as written by the Founders, was designed to ensure the demise of tyranny and those who practice it. Period.
The Second never WAS about 'sporting use'..it was...and is...about killing tyrants.
Yep, read the second many many times and have never found the line about duck hunting....
I did say what you said, but without all the silly ranting and screaming. Are you related to Billy Mays???[;)]