Sportsmen and Hunters......
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.
0
-
After enough time elapses for a sufficient amount of sheeple(and this is very soon[xx(])to agree that the ONLY use for firearms shall be for hunting/sporting shall they become illegal in all other aspects and or possession and shall be rendered inoperable at all other times.
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?0 -
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. quote:Originally posted by wsfiredude
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.0 -
It could be steve, if you are wearing blinders which make reality seem so much more rosey. 0 -
Im not the one wearing blinders, you are. You dont seem to know anyone, or talked to anyone, that is'nt just like you. If you did you'd know that most people in the US are afraid of private ownership of firearms. You'd know that most non-gun owning Americans think that a gun in anyones hands can only do them harm. You'd know that the US has more gun deaths than the next 35 industrial nations combined. That 275 million Americans that dont own guns but have the same voting rights as you think about that. The NRA knows this, McCain/Palin knows this. Thats why gun owners become "Sportsman and Hunters". This sounds better to the non-gun public. 0 -
Well, I can do some research to refute you, but right off the top, your propagnda is wrong in that 275 million non gunowners is incorrect. There are studies indicating 90 million gunowners in a population of 310 million people. You do the math, and take into consideration that the 310 million includes those age 0-18.
Blinders anyone? I have a pair for sale, CHEAP![}:)]0 -
Tell you what steve, here is a link to the U.S. Dept of Justice (DOJ)
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.0 -
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? 0 -
quote:Originally posted by steve45
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.[;)]0 -
age 0-18: 55 million, leaving 165 million "adults" able to own.
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?0 -
quote:Originally posted by steve45
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.0 -
The numbers in this article jump all over the place and contradict themselves several times. While that article says half of Americans are gun owners at the top it goes to 40% in the bottom. In the column on the left side of the page it says that 25% of adults have firearms with 74% having more than one. Regardless we are talking a huge number of people who dont own firearms. No politician can win this election without the votes of the non-gun owning households. If they want to dress up the image of gunowners by calling them Sportsman and Hunters so be it. 0 -
Your opinion, not mine. Continue kneeling. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by jpwolf
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?0 -
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 restrictions at all on firearms. No background checks, no records, and no 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." (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, thats the price of freedom". 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? 0 -
I've got to go now but will be back tonight to read and respond to the slurs, I mean comments later.[:D][:D][:D] 0 -
quote:Originally posted by steve45
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.0 -
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. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by Juggernaut
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.0 -
Interesting POV rock.
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.0 -
jpwolf, I did not say BOR is granting the rights, I said a paper, which would be considered granting rights, not protecting them from government power (or in other words, limiting government power) would turn rights into privileges. 0 -
There is no privilege about it as a privilege can be denied, a right is something you are born with and a privilege is granted to you; we have a Constitutional Right that we were all born with to keep and bear arms and to form a Militia in this Country and its not a privilege whether or not they try to remove it as it doesn't make any difference because it is a right that cannot be taken away by anyone as it is part of the nomenclature of this Country and was placed in the Constitution for us at the beginning of this Nation by the Founding Fathers and is also legally binding with no provision for its removal, this was done purposefully as our Founding Fathers had insight that others might try to remove it from us and even the Supreme Court has enough jurisprudence even to realize this to some degree with their limited understanding. We have the natural right by Almighty GOD to protect ourselves, our families and our communities from any enemy and to provide for the well being of our families and communities such as defense, hunting, etc, they are two separate institutions and are one together. The highest law of the land is the Constitution of the United States. The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute must be in agreement with it to be valid. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail over the other. 0 -
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. 0 -
<-- in response to Jaggernaut's post.0 -
quote:Originally posted by jpwolf
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. [:)]0 -
That is so much clearer to me. Maybe others got it the other way, I didn't. Duh![:p]<--me only my eyes are crossed[:D] 0 -
jpwolf, my ability to express myself clearly still needs work. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by steve45
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.[:)]0 -
quote:Originally posted by Rockatansky <-- in response to Jaggernaut's post. Its Juggernaut, not the purposeful misspelling by individuals in order to attempt to be insulting and all because someone contradicted them and that just proves my point a bunch of immature little kids or something. I suppose that I could do the same, but it really seems rather pointless, but maybe not to the delusional little minds of immaturity.
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.0 -
The 2nd Amendment is the enforcement/penalty clause of the Bill Of Rights! Nothing more, nothing less. It provides for the individual right to 'be armed' for defense purposes, both individually and collectively.[:)]
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]0 -
quote:The 2nd Amendment is the enforcement/penalty clause of the Bill Of Rights! Nothing more, nothing less. It provides for the individual right to 'be armed' for defense purposes, both individually and collectively
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... " ???0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
46 comments