American big game hunter.... calls gun owners terrorists.

[LePaul]

While I dont agree with all the points you made, you have stated some things very well.

[Maverick]

Charon pretty well covered all the bases in my case as well.

[cpxxx]

What occurs to me from reading this is the rather over the top reaction to the man's comments. You might disagree with him but was it neccessary to destroy him in the process? He has lost his livelihood and reputation in one fell swoop. There seems to have been a concerted campaign to punish him to the extreme for his perceived disloyalty to the cause.

Why was that neccessary? Surely a letter from the NRA or a personal approach to point out the error of his ways would have sufficed. If it had been handled in that way, maybe it wouldn't have ended up in the mainstream press further serving to convince the anti gun or neutral public that gun lobby is a bunch of extremists.  Turning on your own does nothing for PR among the wider public.

Plus comments like this don't help.

i dont think the 2nd amendmant is for self defense or hunting
it is there so u can kill politixians

As I have stated before. Our Forefathers were wise enough to realize that all forms off government become corrupt over a period of time. They gave us the Second Amendment so the People could wash away the corrupt with the politicians blood.

How many of you own guns as a means to defend you and yours against the Government &/or to participate in it's overthrow?

Hap, if push comes to shove then every American who owns a firearm will and that's what the government fears.

Killing politicans? Having guns against the day when you decide to overthrow the goverment? Isn't that terrorism?

That kind of thing is perfect ammunition for the anti gun lobbyists. 'Look they're threatening to overthrow the democratically elected government.' In these days of paranoia with words like terrorism and war being bandied around. Maybe a less antagonistic attitude might work better. If gun owners and the NRA can be tagged as gun nuts and perceived as a threat the easier it is to bring in restrictive laws. It would be too easy to bring in legislation, that while it complies to the letter of the constitution, might very well drive a 50 ton tank through the spirit of the second amendment. You could still have the 'right to bear arms' but it would be laden down with so many restrictions and complications that it's hardly worth it.

It would be ironic that the very thing you fear most would be hastened into law because your own overly robust defence of your cause. You can bet too that the same legislation would be popular with the ignorant masses who know nothing about guns.

[bsdaddict]

Originally posted by cpxxx
Killing politicans? Having guns against the day when you decide to overthrow the goverment? Isn't that terrorism?

"terrorism" is in the eye of the beholder.   study U.S. history much?

[Shuckins]

cpxx, if bearing arms against one's own government is terrorism then the Founding Fathers were terrorists.  They would have found the pacifistic, limp-wristed notion that armed revolution against our modern government is never justified to be ludicrous.

[Hap]

Originally posted by cpxxx
but was it neccessary to destroy him in the process?

CP,

This was the Casper Star Tribune's take in a recent editorial.  They disapproved of the NRA's heavy handedness.

Pish . . . a legit association founded to improve gunnery, then in the 70's overtaken by reactionary politicos.

All of it is so silly, and the zillion dollar gun barrons laughing to the bank draped in the 2nd amendment.

All the Best,

hap

[storch]

Originally posted by Hap
Thanks for clearing that up.  

I had formerly thought Regards,

hap

that's where your problems begin.  refrain from thinking sir, clearly you aren't up to the task.

[cpxxx]

Originally posted by bsdaddict
"terrorism" is in the eye of the beholder.   study U.S. history much?

Indeed I am quite familiar with U.S. history. We were taught it in school. It's a bit shorter than our own. But that was then and this is now.

Bearing arms against your own government  is described as terrorism these days. It's one thing to resist your 'own government' when it's way over there in London. We Irish have a long history of that! But it's quite another to bear arms against an American government democratically elected by your countrymen. It's a big difference.

But I am talking about perception. I know that none of you are planning to overthrow the US government. (Well I hope not?) But what of the anti gun lobby? How do they see the NRA? It's all about PR. Guns and gun owners have a bad press. Wouldn't it be better to make guns a bit more warm and fuzzy. Well OK maybe not fuzzy:cool:  But you know what I mean.

I don't think pillorying a member of the group who failed to toe the party line is either sensible or conducive to rational debate.

[lazs2]

cpxx.. it is not "failure to tow the party line"  it is someone that gun owners supported by buying the magazine he writes in.. it is him telling us that we are not worthy and that we are terrorists.   To hell with him.   We simply informed his mag that we wouldn't be reading the articles of someone who thinks so little of us.

This is the perfect way to do it.. vote with your dollars.

As for revolution... we don't fawn over our government like UK members do.   We distrust it as a rule and it knows it.   the government knows we are armed and that they can only push us so far (hopefully a lot less than yours has pushed you)  It is an uneasy truce but one that works for us.   If guns are gone then the balance is destroyed and we become decaying socialists like the UK unable to even defend ourselves from predators much less the government.

No one here wants a revolution... we want the government to back off so we don't need one.     It seems that you feel that you are the government.. we feel that it is our duty to protect against government getting too much power.

hap.. you never answered the question...  What do you think the second is all about?  Is it hunting or... maybe you feel it is an amendment that gives the government the right to arm its soldiers?

lazs

[Charon]

This was the Casper Star Tribune's take in a recent editorial. They disapproved of the NRA's heavy handedness.

As usual, the Media pits the "NRA" vs the common folk and common sense. It is also inaccurate. A bunch of individuals, tens of thousands independently, had already toasted Zumbo before the NRA even woke up about the issue. They were late to the picnic. This is well established and public record for anyone that can read the dates on a message board post or press release. The Casper Star's editorial stuff must have just looked to the Brady Campaign Web site or the Washington Post to "get the facts" just like the Trib and Sun Times do in Chicago.

Pish . . . a legit association founded to improve gunnery, then in the 70's overtaken by reactionary politicos.

All of it is so silly, and the zillion dollar gun barrons laughing to the bank draped in the 2nd amendment.

Of course, they had to do that as the political process put their initial purpose at risk. For example, the most common weapon used in high power matches today, unless I'm mistaken, is the AR-15 platform followed by the M1A and to some extent the Garand. All but the Garand are impacted by the pending semi auto bans.

As for "zillion $ gun barrons..."

Last I heard George Soros and his Hollywood buddies, etc. were putting notable funding into the anti 2nd efforts. The Brady bunch has the resources to get those 1/2 truths out to the media and buy their anti politicians. I know I hardly have a "zillion $" and without the NRA I have no voice. NRA speaks for me (generally) and about 8 million PEOPLE just like me.

Charon

[Charon]

It's a bit shorter than our own.

That's just it. We lack all those centuries where the peasantry was subjugated by the king

Charon

[lazs2]

hap doesn't know anything about the NRA in the 70's or today and he doesn't know much at all about the second amendment.

charon is correct in that the real money is in the anti gun side.   The NRA is a body of the people.. the anti gun lobby is a body of rich and powerful politicians who want to shape the politics of the nation.

Hap is being duped like so many others..  I don't want soros or finesteins socialist gun free vision of America.

lazs

[bsdaddict]

Originally posted by Charon
That's just it. We lack all those centuries where the peasantry was subjugated by the king

Charon

the pilgrims/settlers came from over there, same history.  they just said "screw this crap, we're getting out of here!"  

[GtoRA2]

Originally posted by lazs2
hap doesn't know anything about the NRA in the 70's or today and he doesn't know much at all about the second amendment.

charon is correct in that the real money is in the anti gun side.   The NRA is a body of the people.. the anti gun lobby is a body of rich and powerful politicians who want to shape the politics of the nation.

Hap is being duped like so many others..  I don't want soros or finesteins socialist gun free vision of America.

lazs

Hap isn’t being duped, he sounds like he is whole heartedly against the rights of his fellow Americans. He should be ashamed, yet he is smug instead.

[Xargos]

SMUG ALERT!