archenemy Posted January 5, 2007 Posted January 5, 2007 Hunting is far too popular or not newsweek article on the waning of hunting The Elusive Hunter It's a way of life that dates to the dawn of the nation. But hunting is on the wane in America. A sportsman's lament. These people that want to ban hunting. Hypocrits, Wonder what that cheesburger has in it everynight. They want us all to become a bunch of Vegans? I love animals they taste great!!!! This is not hypocrital--if the hamburger eating bunch says hunting is bad and then they themselves don't hunt, they are not hypocrites. Quote
archenemy Posted January 5, 2007 Posted January 5, 2007 FW: I can't get the womenandguns.com site to come up. What's up with that? I couldn't get to it directly either. Quote
Seahawks Posted January 5, 2007 Posted January 5, 2007 (edited) Hunting is far too popular or not newsweek article on the waning of hunting The Elusive Hunter It's a way of life that dates to the dawn of the nation. But hunting is on the wane in America. A sportsman's lament. These people that want to ban hunting. Hypocrits, Wonder what that cheesburger has in it everynight. They want us all to become a bunch of Vegans? I love animals they taste great!!!! This is not hypocrital--if the hamburger eating bunch says hunting is bad and then they themselves don't hunt, they are not hypocrites. Some animal died to put that burger in there mouths. According to the article there against inhumane treatment of animals. slaughter houses make hunting look very humane. Edited January 5, 2007 by Seahawks Quote
archenemy Posted January 5, 2007 Posted January 5, 2007 First, look up hypocrite. I think you meant double standard. Anyway, I won't eat storebought meat when I can avoid it b/c I don't like the inhumane treatment of animals. I hunt b/c I know that animal lived well and died fast. People think my thinking on that is fucked up. I think going to McD's is fucked up. But misunderstanding the difference between hypocrites and double standards is the cruelest most fuckedupednessest. Quote
Seahawks Posted January 5, 2007 Posted January 5, 2007 First, look up hypocrite. I think you meant double standard. Anyway, I won't eat storebought meat when I can avoid it b/c I don't like the inhumane treatment of animals. I hunt b/c I know that animal lived well and died fast. People think my thinking on that is fucked up. I think going to McD's is fucked up. But misunderstanding the difference between hypocrites and double standards is the cruelest most fuckedupednessest. The buck I got this year tastes great, so do those Pheasants. mmm mmm Quote
Seahawks Posted January 5, 2007 Posted January 5, 2007 I hear the clueless twit makes an excellent game bird. Although it is slow moving, smells like a fresh cat turd marinating in its own juices, and has a monotonous song, it's ubiquity makes for a plentiful, if unsatisfying, bounty. creative. Got any more Weed? Quote
Fairweather Posted January 5, 2007 Author Posted January 5, 2007 However many other people and the NRA in particular interpret the 2nd to mean any kind of weapon is their birthright. Did you know the 2nd ammendment is an amendment? I know, I have to speak real slow here. It is not part of the origional constitution. It can be re-ammended at the whim of Congress, and probably will. Leaving you nothing to stroke. Get over it. Mountain Mouse. I think you better go back to....3rd grade. The "Bill of Rights" includes the first 10 amendments to the constitution. They cannot be changed by "a whim of congress" - but trying to explain the process by which they can is probably just rushing ahead. We'll give that lesson next week...and I'll try to speak slowly. Meanwhile, try taking your foot out of your mouth. I think it's telling that those here who share your beliefs - but not your lagging intellect - are willing to overlook your glaring idiocy. Quote
Roger Posted January 5, 2007 Posted January 5, 2007 Did you know the 2nd ammendment is an ammendment? I know, I have to speak real slow here. It is not part of the origional constitution. It can be re-ammended at the whim of Congress, and probably will. You should probably lay off the condescension unless you can get your facts straight. Not being part of the 'original' constitution doesn't make it easier to amend, and it takes a lot more than an act of Congress. We now return you to your regularly scheduled poo thread. Quote
dbconlin Posted January 5, 2007 Posted January 5, 2007 Go back to Jamaica ... Last time I checked we had a right to bare arms. Quote
Roger Posted January 5, 2007 Posted January 5, 2007 I think it's telling that those here who share your beliefs - but not your lagging intellect - are willing to overlook your glaring idiocy. Idiocy I can overlook, so long as it is consistent with my unthinking allegiance to the elitist liberal agenda. I think it was the patronizing that got me. Quote
tvashtarkatena Posted January 5, 2007 Posted January 5, 2007 Yeah, guns, no guns, amendments, rights, idiocy, whatever...got it. Now, about Jamaica... Quote
mtn_mouse Posted January 5, 2007 Posted January 5, 2007 [Mountain Mouse. I think you better go back to....3rd grade. FW I'd like to have a rational discussion with you about the 2nd amend, but I'm sure you're too busy re-loading to pay much attention. Quote
Fairweather Posted January 5, 2007 Author Posted January 5, 2007 After you explain how congress can repeal constitutional amendments on a whim. Aren't you embarrased? I would be. Quote
foraker Posted January 5, 2007 Posted January 5, 2007 Disclaimer: I am not a gun owner, though my father is and I grew up around them and had firearm safety training in, of all places, elementary school. As well-meaning (or not) Nickels' proposals are, they either a) don't address the core problems of gun violence or are b) pointless. Crimes of passion or violence rarely use 'assault weapons' (though that depends on whose definition you are using. Some moms probably think bb guns are 'assault weapons'). If on takes the stand definition, this reduces bans on 'assault weaponst' to merely a 'feel good' sound bite. The fact is, few people own them and use them in crimes. While not an expert on the subject, since I don't follow it closely, I also suspect that his proposal to require background checks at 'gun shows' is also more political grandstanding. IIRC, checks are already required for federally licensed gun dealers and this proposal would only seek to shut down private guns sales at ostensible 'gun shows'. Finally, requiring gun locks is another 'feel good' pointless proposal since it's essentially unenforceable without continuous warrantless searches of your premises. Having a permanent gun lock would also basically make a weapon useless for home defense since one probably wouldn't have time to unlock the weapon in order to use it. What he clearly wants to target is the tragic use of parental firearms by children/youths. While this is certainly laudable, fixing this problems requires either a) education or b) parents putting locks on weapons while away from home and perhaps removing them while sleeping or c) both. My father kept many unlocked firearms in the house but neither he nor my mother worried much about it since they knew we knew how to handle them and that they weren't toys. Nickels proposals are, like so many political proposals, a band aid for a more serious problem and, at worst, the thin wedge leading to more draconian gun laws. In any event, I've always found it a bit interesting that one group of people advocates for sex education in schools, yet balks at the idea of educating young people properly about firearms and that another group advocates for the opposite. I'm sure Fairweather et al could flesh this topic out more. Quote
foraker Posted January 5, 2007 Posted January 5, 2007 After you explain how congress can repeal constitutional amendments on a whim. Aren't you embarrased? I would be. Hey, don't run him off. I'm looking for some entertainment! Quote
Fairweather Posted January 5, 2007 Author Posted January 5, 2007 Stop making sense, Foraker! I need to hate you. Quote
foraker Posted January 5, 2007 Posted January 5, 2007 (edited) You can hate JayB. He's an ABD. He'll soon have that PhD you despise so much. Spread some of that love around. Edited January 5, 2007 by foraker Quote
Fairweather Posted January 5, 2007 Author Posted January 5, 2007 Even you once claimed to be unimpressed with the title. While I admire the hard work, dogged persistence, money, and yes, intellect it surely takes to reach the pinnacle of Mount Edu, I don't think the award grants special standing outside of the holder's field of study. Especially regarding politics. Besides, its been a fairly effective button to push. Quote
mtn_mouse Posted January 5, 2007 Posted January 5, 2007 After you explain how congress can repeal constitutional amendments on a whim. Aren't you embarrased? I would be. Simply poetic license. The point is only that gun control legislation can pass, and thanks to the irresponsible views of the NRA, it is more likely to happen than not. IMHO there are few acceptable uses for assault weapons, semi-auto magazine loaded rifles, or handguns. The repeal of the assault weapon ban was a bad idea. Reference checks at gun shows are a good idea. Anyone can buy a gun at those shows, should they? Maybe there are some violent felons that should not have guns? Allow rifles and shotguns for hunters to use, if they don't have a violent criminal past. Maybe our Canadian neighbors are on to something. I'd love to rant on this more, but I need to go eat a waffle and take a shower. and by the way, the mtn mouse is never embarrased. Quote
mtn_mouse Posted January 5, 2007 Posted January 5, 2007 Mountain Mouse. I think you better go back to....3rd grade. The "Bill of Rights" includes the first 10 amendments to the constitution. They cannot be changed by "a whim of congress" FW I am surpised you are familiar with the constitution since bush has thrown it out and it is no longer used in this country. BTW as I understand it, congress only needs a 2/3 vote. And as far as going back to third grade, well I'll see you in 4th grade next fall- I hear you're being held back. Quote
Seahawks Posted January 5, 2007 Posted January 5, 2007 FW I am surpised you are familiar with the constitution since bush has thrown it out and it is no longer used in this country. When the hell did this happen??? Did I fall asleep or another dumbass Liberal talking??? Quote
Dechristo Posted January 5, 2007 Posted January 5, 2007 IMHO there are few acceptable uses for assault weapons, semi-auto magazine loaded rifles, or handguns. Where I live, most ranchers and homeowners own and/or carry weapons of this description. For some reason, people from the nearby urban center think it best or humane to dump unwanted pets in our rural area. They fail to realize that the cats multiply unchecked and dogs pack-up wreaking havoc on wildlife populations, livestock, our pets, and us and our kids (ever come across a pack of wild dogs in a rural/wilderness setting? Scary.). Besides, rippin'-up sawblades hung from a branch at 80 yards with a .223, 7.62X39, and handguns is great fun and practice. and by the way, the mtn mouse is never embarrased. No need for embarassment, though contrition when apprised of your ignorance shows intelligence. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.