Quillback Posted January 18, 2013 Posted January 18, 2013 Obama is a firearms and ammo manufacturers best friend. I wish I had bought a couple of dozen AR-15's a few months ago, could've doubled my money. http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/18/16570552-gun-stores-running-low-on-weapons-as-sales-surge-owners-say?lite
Justin Spencer Posted January 18, 2013 Posted January 18, 2013 I feel an X coming up, it's been a good conversation until we start shoving things up our butts, and thinning out poor black people because there are too many of them, doubt that's what you meant jd, but it's what it looked like. Once again it seems as if certain people can see both sides of the arguement and see needs for some, if not all changes, and then others can't even budge on things that would at least set a good example for attitudes changing in the future. The main thing these gun control talks do is make the conspiracy theorists panic and go buy up all the guns and ammo for a while. I bet if you asked the people that we percieve should be worried about gun control (the gun shop owners) they love when this comes up every few years because they make all kinds of money, and while they realize they may have more paperwork to do in the future, they will never be banned from selling firearms. Any one else thing Manti Teo was in on his hoax because he may not be in to women? "The problem with a politician’s quote on Facebook is you don’t know whether or not they really said it." –Abraham Lincoln Tales of an Ozark Campground Proprietor Dead Drift Fly Shop
rfd515 Posted January 18, 2013 Posted January 18, 2013 Ok Now in the nicest way possible. Why should I not be able to use my 338 for hunting I have for years and years or a 308 those are both HIGH CAL RIFLES you say your fine with banning. the 6.5 grendal is quickly becoming one of the most used hunting caliburs and its build and designed for the AR Platform. Your arguement holds no water as the ban is on a " look" of a weapon. Not many sportsmen would ever call a 10/22 an "assault rifle" but do a search on many of the build projects and if you didnt know it was a 10/22 you would think AR-15. It is the look people are banning. READ THE ARTICLE ABOVE. These guns are not assault rifles, they look like them and thats it. Another law restricting our RIGHT because of criminals and insane people is not needed, they will find another way. Why can't I own any weapon I want to buy? I don't use them for anything illegal. If I did, current background checks would prohibit me from buying one. I can go thru a background check, pay an outrageous tax, and own a fully auto if I desire. And with the AWB, I can still do it, it does not affect fully auto. I could still do it with the previous AWB. And with the full auto, I could really do alot of damage and still be legal. But, the same gun, semi auto like a majority of firearms, I am branded a threat and can't buy one off the shelf with almost the same criteria and no tax. Seems like they only want the tax. I hunt deer with an AR 15. I hunt coyote with an AR 15. I hunt groundhogs with an AR 15. I hunt feral hogs with an AR 15. I have owned and hunted with one since 1986. I am perfectly legal and responsible when I do it. I enjoy building new rifles based on the AR 15 platform, until recently when parts became extinct again. I really don't want to give up that luxury again. Take this as my complete personal opinion and not a jab. That's not my intention but I don't know of a way to say this without it sounding 'holier than thou.' In my opinion, when hunting game, you shouldn't need or take multiple consecutive shots in short order on any animal. If you need to rip off multiple shots at an animal, I don't think you should've shot at it in the first place. Realistically, if you shoot at say a deer, what are the odds that your second shot or shots thereafter are going to be a respectful hit on the animal? I treat squirrel's and small game the same way. I may hunt them with a 10/22 but my goal is one good, clean shot, I'm not going to rely on the fact that I can rip off 10. Again, this is just how I hunt and my view, no disrespect intended.
Feathers and Fins Posted January 18, 2013 Author Posted January 18, 2013 RFD, I preach that to every new hunter i take out. The first shot should be the best shot and a clean kill to respect the animal. I refrain from taking "long shots" when waterfowl hunting with new people so they dont think ( he did it i can ) attitude. No waterfowler likes sky busting. Clean kills should be taught for birds 30yrds and under and it should go with a lot of Sportingclays and skeet shooting in the off season. For big game hunting I think most people take shots that are way to far and often with under powered weapons for the job. They also have no idea of how adjust the scope for the load windage and elevation and for that i say sight the gun in at 200 yards and no your bullets impact at 100 and 300 yrds and take no shot past 300. Guys that make the long shots put a lot of time in learning the gun, scope, load, windage, elevation how temperature effects the bullet etc. Its not about pulling the trigger and hoping for a hit. It is about everything that goes into it including time spent looking not at the target but everything between you and it. My longest shot 927 yrds I spent over 30 minutes on the Antelope pickking out every branch and twig i could see that could deflect the shot, I did so many calculations on the above mentioned item in that time and it was after 1000's of rounds down range that gave me the confidence to make all it come togeather. This is why i really wish people spent more time getting to know their weapon, hunting, plinking or even home protection the more you know the weapon the safe it is and you are and everyone else. I know what you mean about multiple shots on animals and wish i could say i never had to take a second or third but the truth is it happens. What I hate is something i saw this year. some kids on youth deer unleash 6 rounds of 00 buck at a running doe, They dam near hit a couple fishermen, and right there with them was their dad ( assume dads) whooping and hollering to keep shooting. To me people like that need to have the guns taken from them. And yes i do think there are people who shouldnt have guns, same as i said for years when i was doing reptile education and even as an instructer for venomous education. I actually refused to sign off on several peoples permits and made sure to write a letter to the state explaining why they should not issue the permit to them. Some people want to be MACHO for lack of better words and they are dangerous to themselves and others. But with guns we have the RIGHT to them and unless your a felon or mentally ill there is not much that can be done to keep them out of peoples hads, We can require at least a course (required) to own them, Hunters must have hunter ed and to carry concealed you must take a course. Either of those will help a little and IMO do not violate anyones right. Maybe forcing people to take one of them might make people pause and determine if they really want a gun and maybe after one they might be more careful with one, certainly more knowledgable. https://www.facebook.com/pages/Beaver-Lake-Arkansas-Fishing-Report/745541178798856
dennis boatman Posted January 18, 2013 Posted January 18, 2013 And in honor of our great Nation my wife and I went shopping tonight for matching XDM's his and hers. A family that shoots together stays together ...you'll shoot your eye out!!! A strike indicator is just a bobber...
Wayne SW/MO Posted January 18, 2013 Posted January 18, 2013 The arguement that criminals are going to do it anyway is assine in my opinion. One could say that is an asinine opinion Justin. Yes we have laws and we know it works with some while it doesn't with others. But when you're talking about people who have mental problems it gets harder to apply the fear of punishment, add in a desire to commit suicide and laws moral or legal become useless. We know some criminals will because they do. If guns could be realistically controlled to prevent crime it would be a different debate, but they can't. Ironically we have a government screaming for more control that happens to have fed assault weapons into Mexico, and some have already come back to bite us. Today's release is tomorrows gift to another fisherman.
DaddyO Posted January 18, 2013 Posted January 18, 2013 Just weighing in on this conversation. I haven't read the entire thread so I'm not sure what the entire conversation is about. So, I'll just say this: The 2nd Amendment is not about hunting or the weapons used for sport. The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms. The Second Amendment is the only Amendment to the Bill of Rights with a stated purpose: "a well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state." The Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense. DaddyO We all make decisions; but, in the end, our decisions make us.
Jack Jones Posted January 18, 2013 Posted January 18, 2013 That's not wholly correct DaddyO. When read within the context of the entire document, and in the context of the historical negotiations to put the document together, the purpose of the amendment was to allow for people within the militia to keep and bear arms, with the militia being under control of the states to maintain order and put down insurrections. Specifically, slave insurrections, which were fairly numerous in that time. The 2nd Amendment was a conceit to the Southern states to placate them since they were afraid that federal control would prevent them from having these militias to corral errant slaves and slave revolts that could potentially lead to the Federal government freeing said slaves (which it eventually did ---- remember, that wasn't a state's rights decision). It was also never there to protect the right of citizen's to fight against the 'tyrannical government'. If that were the case, where's the Constitutional right to insurrection when I feel tyrannized, and who determines when the government is too tyrannical? Remember, the a great many of the British citizens at the time were horrified by the action of the domestic terrorists we now call 'revolutionaries'. They had no interest in separating from the mother country. An even greater number were apathetic to all of it, much like today. In the end, it was all about a minority that was able to gain control and impose its own interests, with design on acquiring more land, more money, and more property. Hence.....the Revolutionary War and Constitution of the United States of America. The 2nd Amendment was never specifically about a single person's right to own a firearm for personal defense. However, it has since been interpreted as such and that's fine. However, as with all rights, they are to be tempered with reasonable regulations, which will always be subject to change as time and circumstances evolve. That said, I didn't find any of the proposals I've seen so far too onerous that they would prevent the majority of the people who hunt or who shoot sportingly from owning firearms and exercising personal home defense. "Thanks to Mother Mercy, Thanks to Brother Wine, Another night is over and we're walking down the line" - David Mallett
Justin Spencer Posted January 18, 2013 Posted January 18, 2013 Interesting stuff Jack. I think whether or not a person is for increased gun control or not, the way the 2nd Amendment is worded there is plenty of room for interpretation. For this reason it is the least credible arguement against gun control in my opinion (if they wanted to full out ban all guns, then the 2nd amendment should prevent that). The supreme court will ultimately decide if a law needs to be challenged and should they be needed we have to put our trust in them. I enjoyed reading F&F's take on the ethics of hunting, and agree with everything he said. I think this narrative as much as anything points out how unecessary weapons with huge magazines are. They lead to unethical shots when hunting (we all can tell when someone is shooting an AR during deer season, and if you are like me you cringe after about the 4th shot in 5 seconds), and outside of a fun gun to shoot at the range, they are outperformed by guns more suited to a particular shooting situation. "The problem with a politician’s quote on Facebook is you don’t know whether or not they really said it." –Abraham Lincoln Tales of an Ozark Campground Proprietor Dead Drift Fly Shop
Feathers and Fins Posted January 18, 2013 Author Posted January 18, 2013 Jack I would assume you are talking about Federalist Paper 29, to base that off of. https://www.facebook.com/pages/Beaver-Lake-Arkansas-Fishing-Report/745541178798856
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now