If you don't think you have a dog in this fight

Discussion in 'The Duck Hunters Forum' started by The Other David, Apr 26, 2018.

  1. The Other David

    The Other David Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    15,823
    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2000
    Just because you have only "hunting guns"...

    Certain guns are exempted from all proposed legislation. These include obviously stupid no-brainers, like the Mini-14 and M1 carbine and Marlin Camp Carbine. But there are other semi-automatic rifles like the Remington 740 and Browning BAR.

    I have been contacting my legislators and writing letters to the editor of the Washington Post and others pointing out that ANY semi-automatic firearm that can take a detachable magazine is an ASSAULT weapon. Every one of them. There is no reason for ANY such gun to be exempted from any bans and restrictions. ALL semi-auto detachable magazine guns are just too dangerous to be in civilian hands.

    I am careful to point out that mass shootings have been committed using .22 semi-autos, shotguns, and bolt action rifles. I detail the enormous damage shotguns can wreak, and give details on how pump-action shotguns are "military grade" weapons. I explain how what we call "deer rifles" are really "sniper rifles" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Texas_tower_shooting).

    It makes sense that only certain guns should be permitted in civilian hands. Guns that should not be allowed include all repeating firearms (handgun, rifle, shotgun) and center-fire rifles capable of shooting less than a 6 inch group at 100 yards.

    So, don't think you can just sit out this wave of mass hysteria. I am doing my best to bring attention to your guns, too.

    You are welcome!
     
    BAYDOG, duck dawg, Fowler267 and 2 others like this.
  2. CA Birdman

    CA Birdman Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    9,606
    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2001
    Location:
    Elk Grove, CA
    You are loosing me with what you are responding to or bringing attention to or exactly what you want to happen. You say only certain guns should be permitted and if it shoots less than 6" group at 100 yards it should not be allowed. Based on your post, it seems you are pushing for gun control and we should be using sling shots. I hope I am missing something as that is not letters I write in support of our 2A rights.
     
    The Other David likes this.
  3. The Other David

    The Other David Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    15,823
    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2000
    No, you are not missing anything.

    There is no logical reason to ban any currently available gun.

    However, there is no logical reason to allow gun banners to splinter off just one kind of gun to be banned.

    Some people who have only "hunting guns" are fine with "assault weapons" being banned.

    If the banning of any gun can be justified, the banning of all guns can be justified.

    There is no stronger advocate of our 2A rights than I.
     
    WoodieSC, duck dawg, por boy and 4 others like this.
  4. OneShotBandit

    OneShotBandit Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    9,012
    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2001
    Location:
    Indiana
    GREAT post, I hope the "they aren't after my hunting gun" crowd reads it!
     
  5. The Other David

    The Other David Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    15,823
    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2000
    I tried to clarify my thoughts, below.

    In truth, every semi-automatic gun, rifle, pistol, and shotgun that takes a detachable magazine is an "assault weapon". Every one of them. Because the “standard capacity” magazine can be swapped out for a “high-capacity” magazine in just seconds.

    There is no logical reason for any semi-automatic gun not to be banned, yet there is a long list of these that are specifically exempted from future legislation.

    And there is no logical reason to restrict the label “assault weapon” to only semi-automatic guns.

    Pump action shotguns are "military-grade" "combat weapons" that are commonly used by the military and police for close-quarters combat. A standard 12 gauge shotgun can spew 185 .24 inch pellets, each capable of killing an adult, in a matter of seconds. Far faster than any AR-15 can spew its .223 bullets. And shotguns have been used in mass killings. In a crowd, every shot is a hit.

    Bolt-action and pump-action rifles are commonly called “deer rifles”, but “sniper rifle” is a more accurate description. A bolt-action rifle was used to kill President Kennedy. A pump action Remington was used to kill Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. A bolt action Remington was used to kill a dozen or more people at the Texas Tower. Killed out to ranges of 400 yards, or more. There is no real reason anyone needs a gun with that degree of accuracy or power.

    There are many on these boards who brag that they have "hunting guns" but are calling for the ban of "assault weapons". Those who are advocating for a ban solely on “assault weapons” are either ignorant or dishonest. There is no other excuse.
     
  6. The Other David

    The Other David Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    15,823
    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2000
    I have seen posts that noted that "No one needs military capable weapons on the streets of America" as justification for banning the AR-15.

    Need.

    This is really quite a deep concept, and it is not given its proper due.

    Who "needs" a gun, and why?

    Is it valid to argue that "military capable weapons" be banned, because no one "needs" them?

    For the sake of debate, let us accept that as truth. "military capable weapons" should be banned, because no one "needs" them.

    It follows, then, that only guns that people "need" will be permitted.

    Why does one "need" a gun?

    Does one "need" a Remington 700 .270 to hunt deer and hogs? No. Because one does not "need" to hunt deer or hogs. In my state of Maryland there is no right to hunt, so no rights are violated by removing the tool "needed" to hunt.

    Does one "need" a Remington 870 12 gauge to hunt ducks and geese? No. Because one does not "need" to hunt ducks and geese.

    Does one "need" any firearm to target shoot, be it skeet or paper targets? No. Because one does not "need" to target shoot.

    Hunting is a sport, entertainment, and the US Constitution does not acknowledge the right to engage in any sport or entertainment.

    When does one really "need" a firearm?

    The only time one truly "needs" any gun of any type is to prevent or stop an attack. Period. Full stop. End of discussion. And at that time, one "needs" all the firepower available.

    So, let us go back to the fact that no one "needs" a gun to hunt or target shoot. What other objects capable of causing harm can reasonably be banned because no one "needs" them?

    Tobacco. Kills maybe 500,000 a year.
    Alcohol. A major risk factor in suicide, homicide, assaults, rapes, domestic violence, falls, car crashes, drowning, death in fires, and a host of diseases.
    Cars. Kill maybe 32,000 a year. Why would anyone "need" a car capable of exceeding the speed limit?

    Following this logic, I see the potential of substantially lowering morbidity and mortality in the US within just a few years.
     
  7. Duckfiend

    Duckfiend Senior Refuge Member

    Messages:
    306
    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2017
    :scratch

    What about deer hunting or target shooting? How do you feel about people on the other side that feel we should have easy access to fully automatic weapons, hand grenades, and RPG's?
     
  8. riverrat47

    riverrat47 Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    1,190
    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    nw illinois
    And if you want to ban any military weapon, you have to ban muzzleloaders, too, as they were used by military units for many, many years.
     
    The Other David likes this.
  9. The Other David

    The Other David Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    15,823
    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2000
    Breach-loading single-shot rifles, too.
     
  10. fishnfool

    fishnfool Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    4,738
    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Location:
    New Hampshire
    This has always been my contention on the gun threads...but that argument certainly cuts both ways.

    On principle, what's the difference between the "only hunting guns" folks and the people who accept banning of an M2, or "arms" that are not guns?

    I'm in total agreement that "assault" "hunting" "military-style", etc. are all essentially meaningless terms. What I don't see is where drawing a line (i.e. banning or heavily regulating) on one "arm" is any more or less constitutional than drawing it at different "arm".
     

Share This Page