| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front |
| A new career awaits Democratic presidential candidates: offering advice to hunters. |
| 2003-11-19 |
| EFL & My Special Little Touch Tuesday, Vermont Gov. Howard Dean explained his support for extending the assault weapons ban He continued: âBecuase when I hunt Le Deer I just want to wound and not kill them, and watch them escape so they will die by some roadside later on.â Charity Alert!... The most charitable interpretation is that the banâs proponents know [absolutely] nothing about guns. The âassault weapon banâ conjures up images of machine guns used by the military, which are surely not very useful in hunting deer. Yet, the 1994 federal assault weapons ban had nothing to do with machine guns, only semi-automatics, which fire one bullet per pull of the trigger. The firing mechanisms in semi-automatic and machine guns are completely different. The entire firing mechanism of a semi-automatic gun has to be gutted and replaced to turn it into a machine gun. Functionally, the banned semi-automatic guns are the same as other non-banned semi-automatic guns, firing the exact same bullets with the same rapidity and producing the exact same damage. The ban arbitrarily outlaws different guns based upon either their name or whether they have two or more cosmetic features, such as whether the gun could have a bayonet attached or whether the rifle might have a pistol grip. (This is what happens asshats who know nothing about such tools begin to tamper in another manâs toolbox.) While there were no studies or scientific basis offered for making these distinctions, the different names or cosmetic features were claimed to make these guns more attractive to criminals. With the sniper trial now going in Virginia, the media understandably focuses on the so-called âsniper rifle.â Yet, the .223-caliber Bushmaster rifle (search) used in the sniper killings was neither a âsniperâ rifle nor an âassault weapon.â In fact, it is such a low-powered rifle that most states ban it even for deer hunting precisely because of its low power, too frequently wounding and not killing deer. By contrast, the much-maligned AK-47 (only new semi-automatic versions of the gun were banned) uses a .30-caliber bullet that is actually well suited to hunting deer. I say we pin some antlers on the two snipersâAssclown and Asshatârub some musk on them and ah, er, let them take a walk through the Catoctin Mountains. Read the whole thing as they say. |
| Posted by:Dragon Fly |
| #14 OP - the .30-30 is my deer slayer rifle of choice. Does everything I need for the distances I'm accustomed to taking deer at- 25-125 yrds. No scope though, I'm too cheap. I also have a fully rifled .20 gauge remington 870 shotgun which is great for shotgun hunting. |
| Posted by: Jarhead 2003-11-19 8:13:57 PM |
| #13 Hell I've got cousins in the tideswamp who use dawgs, shotguns, rifles, salt, speakers, smells, atvs, SUVs, night vision goggles, tree stands, tree houses, misdirection, lying and bright lights to hunt with, if they needed an automatic weapon they'd have one and they don't. (use em for that) |
| Posted by: Shipman 2003-11-19 5:37:50 PM |
| #12 I should also mention that a lot of deer hunters use shotguns due to local/state regulations. For a lot of hunters this ban is a moot point. If law abiding citizens want to buy "assault weapons" for collection purposes, shooting sports, or just home defense - let them. If gun dealers follow established SOP's and laws already on the books, common thugs won't be able to legally get a firearm now will they? Seems pretty obvious to me. |
| Posted by: Jarhead 2003-11-19 4:25:42 PM |
| #11 The only military rifle I've EVER used to hunt with was my uncle's old M-1 Garand. I'd love to have a nice Springfield .303, but the price is exhorbitant - too high IMO for whatever return you'd get from it. Nice Remington or Winchester 30/30 with a scope and bipod makes more sense for REAL elk-hunting in these Colorado mountains, although any shot over about 400 meters isn't going to do much. |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2003-11-19 4:11:40 PM |
| #10 Ship - as far as swing states, definitely. One major reason Ohio jumped over to GWB from Gore was the gun issues about him. I'm from Michigan and can say that Gore almost lost that state over the same issue. Too bad so many union folks we're so afraid of Bush. |
| Posted by: Jarhead 2003-11-19 4:11:13 PM |
| #9 JH How about Michigan and just maybe PA? |
| Posted by: Shipman 2003-11-19 3:19:36 PM |
| #8 Dean, Clark, & Kerry - hahahaha, talking about any serious hunter taking a pseudo-military rifle into the woods - don't make me laugh. I've hunted all my life and have yet to see the .308 version of the AR-15 brandished in the wilderness by some yahoo - even though it would be perfectly legal (but really stupid looking). These guys have obviously never hunted (I don't believe Clark one bit - maybe wing shooting or clays w/an over-under), if they did deer hunt avidly, they would know no self-respecting hunter goes up in a tree-stand or stalk-hunts w/an AK or SKS. These guys need to stick to talking about tax hikes, gay marriage, and affirmative discrimination - that's about their speed. I hope the NRA pounds them on this. Also, this may push GWB to separate himself from them on this issue. Points to be made. B is right - time to score big. They take the wrong stance on guns and they will lose some swing states (i.e. Ohio). |
| Posted by: Jarhead 2003-11-19 2:37:43 PM |
| #7 Does anyone else have Jimmy Carter de jevu watching these 9 wimps bounce around Iowa and NH? Two major differences: none of them are as coherent as Jimmahh was, and they have a strong, energetic, incumbent President, instead of a TRULY "unelected", but perfectly legitimate (and very weak) Ford. The rest of the repuglycon ticket in 1976 wasn't any better. My biggest worry is that if by some miracle any of them got elected, we'd have four more years of the disaster the Carter presidency represented. |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2003-11-19 2:18:52 PM |
| #6 Does anyone else have Jimmy Carter de jevu Me Jack! Still thinking about Jimmuuuh defending himself from the pit rabbit with his concealed paddle. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2003-11-19 2:10:02 PM |
| #5 sigh..you are all too close to this. The GOP is missing the perfect opportunity to score big with this. It's too perfect. It's the ultimate Lose/Lose scenario for these guys. The anti-hunt, anti-gun people will become aware they hunt, and the hunt people will become aware they are idiots. It just doesn't get better than this. |
| Posted by: B 2003-11-19 2:01:54 PM |
| #4 With these yahoos' advice to hunters the deer and antelope will be safer than a guy in his own home. Does anyone else have Jimmy Carter de jevu watching these 9 wimps bounce around Iowa and NH? |
| Posted by: Jack is Back! 2003-11-19 1:27:07 PM |
| #3 The Democratic candidates - The Ninecompoops - should stick to what they know, such as bending over for liberal special interest groups and public service unions, courting the French electorate and bashing America [ed. - those last two are redundant], and leave the gun stuff to the Right. |
| Posted by: Tibor 2003-11-19 1:02:24 PM |
| #2 As long as loaded terms such as "assault weapons" and "sniper rifle" are used, otherwise sensible people are going to be motivated by fear (which in turn is bred by ignorance) to support these kinds of bans. |
| Posted by: Bomb-a-rama 2003-11-19 12:40:54 PM |
| #1 Why do I get the image of candidates dancing as Yosemite Sam shoots bullets at their feet? Regardless of how you feel about hunting, it's not hard to see that this is going to really backfire [pun intended] on them. First of all, most real hunters won't be fooled by this transparent pandering. Secondly, most women don't like discussions on how to blast away at Bambi and Thumper. For every avid hunter they pick up, they will be alienating droves of the women voters on whom they so desperately depend. |
| Posted by: B 2003-11-19 11:57:11 AM |