Guns, Bows, Shooting Sports, and Hunting Moderate alternative to the NRA

[DeezelDood]

Posting this link to open a dialog, based on what I have been reading I am not confident that it will be rational one but here we go:



http://ideas.time.com/2012/12/19/viewpointwe-need-a-moderate-pro-gun-alternative-to-the-nra/



Money quote:



"A moderate sporting organization could oppose knee-jerk proposals like banning “semiautomatic” guns (a class that includes many legitimate sporting arms) while supporting common-sense steps to improve public safety, including the strict regulation of — or even prohibition against — the sale of large-magazine firearms that have no legitimate sporting use. At the same time, such an organization could take on all the issues of more immediate concern to sportsmen than the Second Amendment, in particular the loss of wildlife habitat. The NRA and its even more radical cousins are pretty much exclusively focused on maintaining access to all kinds of firearms and ammunition. It’s an economic agenda to preserve the interests of the companies that make these products, not a pro-sportsmen’s agenda to preserve natural resources and open space; the gun lobby frequently supports politicians with horrendous records on environmental issues. Its narrow focus, as Field & Stream columnist George Reiger observed a few years ago, could lead us to become a nation where people can have “a closet full of guns with no place but a shooting range to use them. ”

 

[crobertson1]

The 2nd Amendment is not about sportsman or hunting or places to shoot. It's about American citizens defending our freedom from tyranical goverment power grabs. Large capacity magazines, in my view are for self defense, againt evil doers and those who would like to deprive us of liberty. So, I have no use for a more "moderate alternative to the NRA". I am not willing to give an inch in the way of compromising our freedom.

 

[JFought]

CROBERTSON dead on!

 

[ata]

CROBERTSON dead on!

I agree with CROBERTSON! Guns are not the real problem. The people that are doing HARM did not come by them LEGALLY or using them LEGALLY.

 

[RWherley]

I agree with you guys but the sad fact is that with the shootings that have happend over the last sever weeks change is comeing and it will not be for the better, all we can do is try to get more people who share our ideas to help protect our way of life.

 

[GHarman]

DeezelDood,
The "alternatives" are already out there.
The Second Amendment is the only written historical precedent of law that codifies the Right of a People to Self Government backed by the force of Arms.
The inalienable right of Self Defense, while not spelled out, is related to the ability to bear arms.
Arms included the best individual battle weapon of the time. The same goes for today. It has been said in another post that the term "assault weapon" is not used in Military Jargon. That was true during my service and is true today. That terminology was a political construct, in an effort to demonize a certain genre of inanimate objects. A foot in the door, so to speak along with all kinds of misinformation about firing rates and buzz words like "spraying" and not reloading. In the words of my Drill Instructor; "Ya gotta aim, Stud!
In the word of a Friend of mine, through an email and used with permission, Mr. Rusty Portner, the Author of "Insidious Measures", wrote;

I once chewed out a man who showed me his AK. I told him that was what was threatening to cause us to lose our rights. A few years later, I got a message to him that he had been right. I realized that timidity was causing us to lose rights, and a strongly supported, but cleverly delivered message that this is not about fixing something that is broken, but preventing the breaking of something that does not need fixing is the right message. Freedom, as expressed in the Constitution and Bill of Rights is not broken and does not need fixing. Although we have added amendments to broaden the participation and protect everyone, we don't need to undo any part of it.

Further, Mr. Portner says;

In our conversations with non-gunowners(and those that suggest compromise{my words}), I think we should answer demands to limit hi cap mags with the argument that we will not give up rights as an answer to the actions of a madman. There are enough madmen out there to dispossess us of all our rights if we accept that premise. People died to protect our freedoms and the tragic loss of life should not counteract those sacrifices. Period.

My point is, if you start to compromise your rights by "trading Liberty for Safety/Security"? Or the thought process that includes,"It doesnt affect me because I dont own one"! Where will you stop? Can you Stop the momentum of those that demand the compromise?
Australia couldnt, The UK couldnt. Pre WW-2 Germany is well documented. Stalinist Russia?
None of those countries have or had a codified Right to Keep and Bear Arms!
If you are considering the consequences of compromise, Add these to your thinking priorities!
Respectfully,
GregH

 

[BIGNASTY]

Posting this link to open a dialog, based on what I have been reading I am not confident that it will be rational one but here we go:



http://ideas.time.com/2012/12/19/viewpointwe-need-a-moderate-pro-gun-alternative-to-the-nra/



Money quote:



"A moderate sporting organization could oppose knee-jerk proposals like banning “semiautomatic” guns (a class that includes many legitimate sporting arms) while supporting common-sense steps to improve public safety, including the strict regulation of — or even prohibition against — the sale of large-magazine firearms that have no legitimate sporting use. At the same time, such an organization could take on all the issues of more immediate concern to sportsmen than the Second Amendment, in particular the loss of wildlife habitat. The NRA and its even more radical cousins are pretty much exclusively focused on maintaining access to all kinds of firearms and ammunition. It’s an economic agenda to preserve the interests of the companies that make these products, not a pro-sportsmen’s agenda to preserve natural resources and open space; the gun lobby frequently supports politicians with horrendous records on environmental issues. Its narrow focus, as Field & Stream columnist George Reiger observed a few years ago, could lead us to become a nation where people can have “a closet full of guns with no place but a shooting range to use them. ”

Sense you dont feel the need to add where your making this statement from I can only assume its from an NON HUNTING STATE. The issue is not that we are going to waste Bambi with high cap mag guns so they will close down the hunting grounds. Montana has 5. 5 million acres Colorado has 22. 7 million acres OF PUBLIC ACCESS HUNTING LAND. That doesn't include the private ranches in Montana that allow access for what amounts to a trespass fee . Im sure that Co has the same kind of program in affect. I dont think that many in MT or I should say that I know would really be mad that they cant get a 14 round clip for their Para P14/45 or a 30 round clip for their AR. But say just one sentence with close the access to public hunting land and YOU WILL HAVE A FIGHT ON. You cant believe all you read in a SPORTING RAG either!! just like newspapers they ALL HAVE THEIR OWN AGENDA. As for the shooting range issue most of in MT just go out in the backyard and plink away. And the ones that live in the bigger cities I haven't heard of any shortage of shooting ranges.



To be perfectly honest I SEE NO NEED FOR HIGH CAP MAG'S and I HAVE NEVER THOUGHT THAT THE PUBLIC SHOULD BE ABLE TO OWN MILITARY TYPE WEAPONS!!!( Or guns before someone said it) What if any sporting use do you need that many rounds for? if a person needs that many LEARN TO SHOOT. Yes I have High cap pistols Yes I have AR based rifles but do I use them for anything sporting that I cant take one of my other rifles (bolt action) and do the samething with NO.



The only issue that I can see is that the RIGHT to have such weapons (guns) would be an infringement on a PRETTY BIG RIGHT so I dont think that I want anyone taking any RIGHTS away from ME.

 

[HHhuntitall]

BIG, let me counter with the fact that I have used MANY high capacity magazines in a "sporting" capacity. It's actually a depratory action, but extremely necessary. Here in Texas, we have the Feral Hog. I'm sure you've heard my tirade about them, but you CANNOT do with your bolt gun, the good I do with my ARs on the hog population. I've killed as many as 24 in one pack in a few minutes, maybe more if you count the wounded..... Yes, I've gut shot them, and I'm not ashamed of it. I kill every one I can. They will literally destroy your crops, fences, water lines, and pastures. To leave them alone would let them literally eat you out of anything that can't be chewed up. I've had them eat the wires out of my water wells!!?!? They'll eat baby calves, quail eggs, turkey eggs, fawns, dead carcasses (even of their own), and anything else the native game will eat. I had 150 acres of Milo(sorghum grain) destroyed by hogs. 150 acres. Wrap your head around that. It wasn't the best crop in the world, but it was good, and would have made me money, probably harvesting close to 4,000lbs to the acre. I ended up only get a percentage of that, and only because I had insurance on it..... then I had to pay the insurance dues... . Just to keep the population in check would require a 500% increase in the current kill/death rate of their species..... NOT to bring it into decline, just to balance it!!!! I feel I actually have a need for high capacity mags, just for that one reason. Secondly, it's my right, as you stated. No one limits you on the amount of diesel you buy at the pump, simply because you don't have a legitimate use for it, despite the fact it's been used in arson. No one limits you on the amount of firewood you can have piled up beside your house to make the winter with, despite the fact people have been clubbed to death with it. It's your right, like you said. Also, lets look at carrying a rifle. If you have one magazine with that capacity, you have enough ammo to hunt for several days. All conveniently loaded in one spot, if you don't run into a pack of hogs. Lastly, considering an AR a military rifle is the same as characterizing a Winchester 100 or even your bolt gun as a military rifle if you loaded it with a 20rnd mag. Our military weapons are the leading edge technology in the world. That's why so many people want them. They work. Why wouldn't you want something reliable to hunt with? In the end, it doesn't come down to keeping people safe. It's about responsibility and power..... No one wants to take responsibility for their actions. "It's the evil gun's fault!!" If you'd kill those crazy a-holes on death row, publicly, the next lunatic would think twice before he walked into a school and opened fire on children..... Most would, anyway. IF a crazy person was getting in your face, 1/2" off your nose, what would you do?!? Then when they went to get in your wife's face, what would you do??!? I'd wager they'd not do it again after that... ...



:handoff-soap-box:

 

[SierraRam]

I personally am the NRA, I have and always will support them and glad that their membership has given them the power to continue to fight for our constitutional rights to keep and bare arms.

I have joined other organizations that focus on hunting and public land rights. These organizations can do a lot more than us as individuals and highly recomend supporting them.

 

[BIGNASTY]

BIG, let me counter with the fact that I have used MANY high capacity magazines in a "sporting" capacity. It's actually a depratory action, but extremely necessary. Here in Texas, we have the Feral Hog. I'm sure you've heard my tirade about them, but you CANNOT do with your bolt gun, the good I do with my ARs on the hog population. I've killed as many as 24 in one pack in a few minutes, maybe more if you count the wounded..... Yes, I've gut shot them, and I'm not ashamed of it. I kill every one I can. They will literally destroy your crops, fences, water lines, and pastures. To leave them alone would let them literally eat you out of anything that can't be chewed up. I've had them eat the wires out of my water wells!!?!? They'll eat baby calves, quail eggs, turkey eggs, fawns, dead carcasses (even of their own), and anything else the native game will eat. I had 150 acres of Milo(sorghum grain) destroyed by hogs. 150 acres. Wrap your head around that. It wasn't the best crop in the world, but it was good, and would have made me money, probably harvesting close to 4,000lbs to the acre. I ended up only get a percentage of that, and only because I had insurance on it..... then I had to pay the insurance dues... . Just to keep the population in check would require a 500% increase in the current kill/death rate of their species..... NOT to bring it into decline, just to balance it!!!! I feel I actually have a need for high capacity mags, just for that one reason. Secondly, it's my right, as you stated. No one limits you on the amount of diesel you buy at the pump, simply because you don't have a legitimate use for it, despite the fact it's been used in arson. No one limits you on the amount of firewood you can have piled up beside your house to make the winter with, despite the fact people have been clubbed to death with it. It's your right, like you said. Also, lets look at carrying a rifle. If you have one magazine with that capacity, you have enough ammo to hunt for several days. All conveniently loaded in one spot, if you don't run into a pack of hogs. Lastly, considering an AR a military rifle is the same as characterizing a Winchester 100 or even your bolt gun as a military rifle if you loaded it with a 20rnd mag. Our military weapons are the leading edge technology in the world. That's why so many people want them. They work. Why wouldn't you want something reliable to hunt with? In the end, it doesn't come down to keeping people safe. It's about responsibility and power..... No one wants to take responsibility for their actions. "It's the evil gun's fault!!" If you'd kill those crazy a-holes on death row, publicly, the next lunatic would think twice before he walked into a school and opened fire on children..... Most would, anyway. IF a crazy person was getting in your face, 1/2" off your nose, what would you do?!? Then when they went to get in your wife's face, what would you do??!? I'd wager they'd not do it again after that... ...

:handoff-soap-box:

HH to me taking care of the coyote population is about the same thing they killed one of my dogs (Pet) and have eaten my chickens and a weaner pig. Your right about the use of the AR type rifles the ones that killed my dog out of the 9 of them in the pack 7 got wasted (I must be getting old) I didnt see them get my chickens or the pig. I know in your life you dont have the time as some others to hunt them down I DO and DID they must at least be as smart as a dog and I know that they are as smart as a hog BECAUSE THEY DONT COME TO THE BUFFET AT MY PLACE ANY MORE and they are still around. YES I did use a high cap mag on my AR but didnt come any where close to the 30 round cap. there are other ways of PEST control that some states and people question that work but that is another issue. In practical use I never had a problem with the clip release on an M16 my mind aint what it use to be but I DONT REMEMBER ANYONE WALKING AROUND WITH A 30 CAP MAG in VietNam, they are an ineffective SPRAY GUN and were a VERY ineffective predator control weapon for the VARMITS we had there. Point being I dont think it takes that much time to drop a clip and keep shooting. But as we both said ITS THE RIGHT TO OWN THEM that is question not the question of DO YOU NEED THEM

I think we both agree on the better control of WHO SOULD GET TO HAVE A GUN.

As for the get in my face im not sure cause ive never had to that close but some how I DONT THINK THAT IT WOULD TAKE 14 ROUNDS out of my Para P14/45 to drop an A**HOLE. same for the wife's end of the deal on one of her many high cap type guns.


The soap box is open for another point of view :-laf

BIG

PS just to set the record I HAVE NEVER TAKEN MORE THAN 2 SHOTS TO DROP GAME THAT I WAS HUNTING. I DID ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS HAVE TO TAKE MORE ON RUNNING GAME THAT SOME OTHER HUNTER SHOT AND COULD NOT SHOOT ACCURATLEY.

 

[Flying_gage]

The OP is operating on the premise that the weapon or the accessories are the problem. That is a bad starting point. It is and will always be the humans operating them.

If there are restrictions that are placed on our rights, depraved people will only change their methods. I guarantee this! In addition there are over 250 million guns in the U. S. For a moderating principle to take effect, it will not work for generations. This points to the illogical cycle that we are trapped in. We are operating on short sighted decision making. That will not work. That is not what our rights were based on... .

We need to return to principles, not whims or fleeting desires. To suggest otherwise is dangerous and will accomplish nothing.

 

[BIGNASTY]

Flying



Im old and dont understand the abbreviations if the OP is ME if you read what was written it said that I DONT THINK THAT THEY SHOULD HAVE EVER been sold to the Joe Public. Now that they are and have been its going to be VERY hard to get them out other than just when the useful life is exceeded and they no longer are available in our case that will be quite a while because the first time Calif started with the ban crap I WENT OUT AND BOUGHT EVERY HIGH CAP MAG I COULD FIND and have MANY

 

[HHhuntitall]

OP = Original Poster... . the guy that started it all... . here, anyway... . I am curious, though, those high cap mags, in a school room full of children, why couldn't he have just as easily used a baseball bat!?!? Morbid thought, but the truth is that he could have used anything to kill those kids. They were the classroom of his mother, and that was his target. He wanted to inflict on her the most pain he could, not matter what. Were firearms not even in the equation, perhaps he would have run the bus off the road on a road trip, or brought a knife... . The deranged will try to find a way once they've made up their mind..... The key, IMO, is to discourage them from the beginning.....



And getting back to this thread subject, there is no "MILD" alternative. The anti-gun lobbyists are organizing with millions of dollars. They have no "mild" goal to them, and their tactics are less then civilized... . Unfortunately, they've gotten extremely organized the last decade, and only need a little provocation to start an outright war on our rights... . Their own neighbors in many cases..... They want thier agenda and point of view to be the one and only point of view. To counter this, the NRA has become what it is. It's an ugly beast fighting an ugly beast. If you want to keep your rights, I suggest you support it. Granted, their leadership comes and goes as to the direction they are headed... . but that's what the ballots are for in the magazine every term. Elect your representatives, in the NRA the same as in the Senate and House.

 

[GHarman]

Fact of the matter is that we have been sucked into this moderate compromise slippery slope on "gun control" issues since the racial violence of the 1960's.
Where did that get us?
The NRA was far more radical back then!!!!
GregH

 

[Yo Hoot]

I just had this published in our local paper. .

To the Times:



I response to M. Penzone of Aston who thinks he has the answer to the gun situation:



Michael, I read your entire letter concerning solving the so called gun problem.



The real problem is not guns, its people’s mentality ... especially mentalities like yours.



All you address in your letter is what regulations should be imposed on law-abiding citizens.



You offer no solutions that deal with criminals and mentally unstable people. How about we figure out how we can eliminate the drug problem in our prisons? We trust our government which knows there is a drug problem in our prisons, but cannot stop it.



We have drug problems in our schools. Let’s double up on making schools drug free.



Let’s talk about why we allow our children to play killing games 24/7 on the computer. Let’s talk about changing the way people think about killing and the effects it has on survivors and society.



There is no way they will ever in my lifetime take away my right to bear arms and there are way too many like me for there to be any threat to the Second Amendment.



So let’s talk about how to teach people to love so we might someday not need the protection of firearms.

Take a look at this list of facts about other countries with their gun control successes... .

http://gunfacts.info/pdfs/gun-facts/6.1/gun_facts_6_1_screen.pdf

 

[GHarman]

Yo Hoot,
You should start a new thread in the political section using that link!
GregH

 

[AMink]

Anytime someone says "common-sense regulation" or "no legitimate sporting use", my BS meter goes of the chart. To me, those phrases are meant to calm the sheep. Who defines "common-sense"? I don't see any common sense at all in banning or regulating MY LEGAL GUNS. Who defines "legitimate sporting use"? No, you can't legally hunt with a 30 round magazine (at least big game) but what is not legitimate about going out and safely shooting 20 or 30 rounds in to a dirt bank just to do it? My red flag also goes up when someone says "I'm a gun owner but".

 

[HHhuntitall]

"We're sorry, but you don't need a 110 gallon tank in the bed of your truck. It just allows you too much running distance, and allows you to bypass high fuel price stations, which is discriminatory. You don't need to carry that much fuel. You have suffecient fuel in the factory tank of 35 gallons. You don't have the right to buy more at one time. Who would need that much fuel anyway? The government is the only one who needs that much fuel at one time, so we can fly our maggots across the country twice a week to tell you how to live. "



Sincerely,

The Greedy Mule Government Mongers who want to enslave you.

 

[JJPage]

"we're sorry, but you don't need a 110 gallon tank in the bed of your truck. It just allows you too much running distance, and allows you to bypass high fuel price stations, which is discriminatory. You don't need to carry that much fuel. You have suffecient fuel in the factory tank of 35 gallons. You don't have the right to buy more at one time. Who would need that much fuel anyway? The government is the only one who needs that much fuel at one time, so we can fly our maggots across the country twice a week to tell you how to live. "

sincerely,
the greedy mule government mongers who want to enslave you.

amen!!!!!!

 

[HBarlow]

deezledood,

Please provide us with the name of any "moderate" in history who accomplished anything heroic, vital to our national interests, important, or even noteworthy.