Maine Hunting Forums banner
1 - 8 of 8 Posts

· Registered
Joined
·
489 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I just got done reading several articles from several puplications on the subject of hunter replacement ratios (i.e. for every one hunter who passes on, how many replace him). Ideally you want a 1:1 ratio or better. The articles essentially described how the states who have the most stringent youth hunting guidelines in the nation also have the lowest hunter replacement ratio. That is, the states with the highest minimum age for hunting, have the fewest number of new hunters. There are six states in the nation who do not have minimum age limits, allof which have replacement ratios of 1:1 or better. Hmmmmm......maybe we should start teaching kids about responsibility and decision making at the ages at which we used to and not coddle them until they are 18.

For any of you skeptics consider this:
The Humane Society of The U.S. (HSUS) has proposed that a federal law be enacted to make 18 the minimum age to hunt, declaring that those under 18 lack the maturity to handle a firearm safely. Why would they seek to place such restrictions on hunting unless it was beneficial to their anti-hunting/anti-gun agenda they so unceasingly cram down our throats. Beware the HSUS and further limitations on hunting.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
489 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
They believe that by eliminating hunting they can eliminate gun ownership. They may very well be right. With the NRA and the like focusing on some "Hunting heritage" BS as the justification for the 2nd ammendment, they will have nothing to justify private ownership of firearms with if hunting is gone. They should instead focus on the fact that the 2nd ammend. is there to provide the populous with a means to overthrow the govt should it no longer represent their best interests.......this is why I will never join the NRA, sadly they are actually facilitating the anti-gunners efforts.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
489 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
The right to defend the nation and yourself/your propety is definately what the 2nd ammendment exists for. However, when the NRA talk about hunting heritage being a reason for gun ownership, they miss the mark completely. This allows antis to target a specific passtime, to erode the 2nd ammendment. In fact I believe that the 2nd ammendement has been erroded to the point to which it is time to :

"dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation." -Declaration of Independence

That is not to say that members of the NRA have somehow betrayed america, just the NRA needs to take a hardline stance of gun rights and why the 2nd ammendment is so important.

I agree with you Lil John no one will get my guns except bullets first.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
489 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 ·
My beef with the NRA is this, they refuse to push for the repeal of the National Firearms Act, the Assault Weapons Ban, etc. All of these are unconstitutional and grounds for rebellion. The NRA chooses instead to defend ownership of "assault weapons" by satating that they "no different from other semi-auto weapons" , well oh boy that really helps. They take the easy way out and don't address that these weapons, which we all know were designed for killing, are able to be posessed per the 2nd ammend. They say well, "these are not machine guns", who the hell cares, I should be able to posess a machine gun if I want to, hell if I want a cruise missle and have money for it, why the hell shouldn't I have one:

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

It clearly says arms, not guns, not long guns, not anything but machine guns, ARMS. That includes nuclear weapons, tanks, missiles, explosives, howitzers, etc. The NRA chooses to ignore this fact, they a spineless like the rest of the politicians.[/b]
 

· Registered
Joined
·
489 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 ·
I am not anti-NRA per se.....I am just sick of sitting around, Thomas jeffson said "God Forbid this country go twenty years without a Revolution"......I ambeginning to thin khe was right, perhaps it is getting to be time....it is after all the spirit in which this nation was founded.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
489 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 ·
I hope I have not offended anybody here, I know I don't take anything you say personally.

To all of you NRA members, I am sorry if I offended you, but.....the truth hurts sometimes. :lol: :lol: :lol: Just kidding.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
489 Posts
Discussion Starter · #15 ·
Interesting piece, although I do not agree with preventing felons from posessing guns.....either they are safe to admit back into society with full rights restored, or they need to remain locked up, no more of this "let's let them out, but they are still too daangerous to let them have a gun", what is that?
 

· Registered
Joined
·
489 Posts
Discussion Starter · #17 ·
I have found difficulty in being able to articulate my reason for dissaproval of the NRA however, I have found the perfect explanation:

"But to answer the question directly the 2nd amendment was not instituted so folks could have arms for defense against burglars. That was so presumed that enumeration of it was not necessary any more than today it would be necessary to write out that you have the Right to think what you wish. The 2nd amendment sought to prevent the government from taking away martial arms from the people so that the people would not be outmatched by a soldier of any government that sought to oppress them.

If a soldier came to your house to commit some heinous act then would you wish to be armed almost as well as he is or just as well as he is? If some evil conservative came into power & wanted to stifle dissent in your home town & sent in troops to do so, would you want your bolt action hunting rifle or an M14?

The framers didn't see automatic firearms coming just like they didn't see home computers with printers. What they did see was a very simple premise: if a person is armed just as well as a soldier, then that person not only stands a fighting chance against the soldier, but may in fact deter the soldier from acting against him.

If a battalion of soldiers are armed with flintlock muskets, then the people should have flintlock muskets. If those soldiers have select fire rifles, then the people should have select fire rifles. Upsetting that balance of power is a very dangerous thing.

A twist has been thrown into things since the 18th century. Back then the military served martial & police roles. Now we have a military force separate from the police force. So not only does a Marine boot being issued an M16A4 justify a citizen having an M14, but the cop down the street having an M4 carbine in his trunk necessitates that the citizen should have an M14 in his trunk as well. Doing otherwise would upset the balance of power; the ultimate check & balance system that the framers set in place. "

Th NRA fears offending its police and military suppoters, so it refuses to acknowledge this fact. The ability to counter the government's goons is the largest single reason for the second ammendment, there are just a whole buch of perks that come along with it.

Credit where credit is due. The quote came from:

http://publicola.mu.nu/archives/2005/10/03/guns_arent_evil_except_for_those_damned_machine_guns.html
 
1 - 8 of 8 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top