Many people in this country hunt to live

[obamanut2012]

I personally loathe hunting and all other blood sports concerning animals. There is also a difference between eating what you kill, but you can afford to buy whatever you want to eat, and eating what you kill because you and your family need to live.

It is apparent many DUers don't understand this. In parts of NC and TN (which are the areas I personally know about), poor and lower class people have always hunted and fished to supplement their tables, but things have gotten even more desperate due to manufacturing being outsourced. Many of these people get basically all of their protein from the land. They reload their own ammo, some have deals to get casings from friends or ranges.

I grew up with families who did this. As an adult, I have taught people who gave to live like this. They range across all fifty states.

All this talk of taxing weapons and ammo, or taxing owners needs to include this. We already have starving children, elderly, and family because of lack of food. This would make it worse.

Guns are also the most efficient and humane (to the animals) way for them to hunt.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

1. city folk don't understand about living off the land.

[obamanut2012]

2. I really think most people don't realize how it is for so many

In certain areas, and how poor and desperate people are. Appalachia, Indian reservations, etc.

I've taught people whose family literally ate roadkill, they were so poor.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

13. That is why gun control is not strictly along party lines

Urban vs rural etc come to mind

[obamanut2012]

24. I think that is true to a large extent

[MightyMopar]

87. Whether someone owns a gun is a more powerful predictor of a person’s political party--NATE SILVER

Whether someone owns a gun is a more powerful predictor of a person’s political party than her gender, whether she identifies as gay or lesbian, whether she is Hispanic, whether she lives in the South or a number of other demographic characteristics.

It will come as no surprise to those with a passing interest in American politics that Republicans are more likely to own guns than Democrats. But the differences have become much more stark in recent years, with gun ownership having become one of the clearest examples of the partisan polarization in the country over the last two decades.

In 1973, about 55 percent of Republicans reported having a gun in their household against 45 percent of Democrats, according to the General Social Survey, a biennial poll of American adults.

Gun ownership has declined over the past 40 years — but almost all of the decrease has come from Democrats. By 2010, according to the General Social Survey, the gun ownership rate among adults that identified as Democrats had fallen to 22 percent. It remained at about 50 percent among Republican adults.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/18/in-gun-ownership-statistics-partisan-divide-is-sharp/

[ProgressiveProfessor]

147. So what...look at the rural/urban split in party registration

and Nate Silver is just another media figure

[MightyMopar]

173. "Nate Silver is just another media figure"

Yep, I think you're biased against reality. What kind of Professor are you?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

210. Comp Sci

I have a strong dislike for media figures and "journalists", who are actually just more media figures.

His source is cherry picked...typical media move.

[MightyMopar]

230. This best pollster in history! want to contest that?

What makes you such an expert on anything? Just curious

[ProgressiveProfessor]

247. He is not a pollster in the least

He is an aggregator of polls and a model user/builder. A good article about it is here: http://www.forbes.com/sites/johnmcquaid/2012/11/07/three-lessons-from-the-nate-silver-controversy/ As the article states, he has been a game changer, though he is not alone. It is not at all clear that he has the same expertise in other areas and that his models are more broadly applicable.

I comment on that which I have real world experience and expertise. That includes a lot of technology, solar power, computer modeling, military stuff, motorcycles, and firearms (which I also teach).

What is so mighty about Mopar these days?

[Eleanors38]

155. The Gallup survey indicates a less than black & white picture...

According to the survey, household ownership of guns is at its highest level since 1993, that those gun-owners identifying themselves as Democrats rose from 30% to 40% in just two years, and women are the fastest rising demographic among gun-owners.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/150353/self-reported-gun-ownership-highest-1993.aspx

And there is a very significant level of gun-ownership here on DU, as you may have ascertained.

[MightyMopar]

158. So you're picking Republican biased Gallup over Nate Silver after the last election? Hilarious

Or is there a lot of Astroturf on DU?

[Eleanors38]

236. Did Nate Silver do the poll cited?

[Jenoch]

303. This is proof that statistics never give a complete picture.

Minnesota is solidly blue. Minnesota also is solidly pro RKBA. the urban vs rural thing is real, but not all rural areas are republican areas.

[Puha Ekapi]

119. On my...

...home reservation, wild game is an extremely important part of our diet. It's about the only really healthy food we have access to. It is also culturally essential to maintain that relationship with our land.

[MightyMopar]

159. Like you can't grow a freaking garden or raise rabbits and chickens?

[peacebird]

170. How would raising rabbits be in some way superior to hunting? Just asking.

I'm a meat eater, get most of mine from a schoolteacher/farmer a mile from my house. I don't eat venison because I find it gamey. But why would raising animals to kill be better than hunting wild animals?

[MightyMopar]

175. You wouldn't need guns

[peacebird]

178. You can trap wild rabbits, no gun needed.

I guess I see guns as tools. What I object to is mega magazines and semiautomatic weapons. Those are not needed to hunt anything except other people.

[Puha Ekapi]

218. You city slickers....

...have no idea what it takes to live off the land, do you? Try actually living off rabbit meat. You'll starve because it lacks adequate fat. You need high quality protein with plenty of fat, and that means big game. Have any idea what it would take to trap a 1000# elk? A rifle is the most humane, efficient way to do that.

Grow a garden adequate to live on? It's a real challenge here. My home is at 5000 ft. elevation in the Uintah Mountains. The growing season is very short, and it gets too cold for even cold hardy crops such as cabbages and kale to survive the winter. Raising chickens and rabbits? Very expensive to heat them over the winter. Ours is a poor community, like virtually every other reservation community in the country.

You folks haven't been around much, have you?

[peacebird]

219. You clearly meant to reply to the person I was replying to, not to me. I support hunting.

I said nothing about raising chickens and rabbits except to ask Mopar why killing raised animals was better than wild.

Mopar replied that killing a domestic animal did not require a gun. A silly distinction in my mind.

[Puha Ekapi]

221. Yes, you are...

...correct. Still finding my way around this place, sorry for the confusion.

[peacebird]

222. No worries! Welcome!

[Puha Ekapi]

226. Thanks!

[mimi85]

331. I think handguns

end up killing far more people overall than semiautomatic weapons, at least accidentally.

[KittyWampus]

242. I was just reading on diets and how frybread came into tradition. And food deserts= no fresh produce

unless you grow it yourself.

[Puha Ekapi]

282. "frybread"

is poverty food. When forced on to reservations, we were usually denied our right to hunt and supplied with meager rations of low quality commodities...flour, lard, maybe a bit of coffee and sugar if we were lucky and the agent was feeling generous. We were also restricted in our access to our other traditional foods that were gathered seasonally in different locations. The entire concept of "food deserts" is pretty modern. There are all sorts of healthy things to eat in our traditional country, but often we can't access it because some white man claims that somehow he owns the land now. We damn sure don't have Whole Foods on the rez, and even if we did, nobody could afford to shop there.

[Hoyt]

109. Some rural hunters don't understand - or care - "city folks" aren't into walking around in public

with guns.

Nor are they into living in compounds (surrounded by assault weapon caches), confederate or "don't tread on me" flags, walking around with a 1911 sticking out of their waist band because it's the thing to do, etc.

Hunting for food -- while not my thing -- is fine, as long as humans aren't the target, and the "hunter" is not a paranoid, bigot.

I don't really buy the "hunter" junk as an excuse to allow these guys to buy semi-auto, rifles or handguns.





Hunters lined up at Atlanta gun show to buy assault weapons only one week after Sandy Hook.

If the NRA gets their way, guys like this can walk around anywhere with a friggin gun or two strapped on.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

110. thank you for that astute and well composed post. and the lovely pictures. you are a credit and an

asset to DU. Bless you.

[MightyMopar]

161. Until rural people start caring about the majority in of the rest of the country

Why should urban people car about them? Most of our food comes from corporate farms in or out of the United States

[peacebird]

174. Most of my food is homegrown or local.... Exception for citrus, which my brother sends me from his

Trees in florida.

But veggies, spuds, sweet taters, figs, blueberries, cherries, apples, peaches, eggs, walnuts.... All from our place. Meat from a mile down the road. Bread from a local organic bakery.

By the way, I do care about rural folks and their lifestyle, even tho I am city raised. When we moved out here we made a concious choice to respect the ways of the locals. We have learned a lot.

[backwoodsbob]

167. this should be fun

we all know your anti gun feelings Hoyt...but to dispell your notions..how about people like me who when i lived in virginia put 800 to 1,000 pounds of meat a year in our freezers hunting?
Do we count?

[Hoyt]

199. If all you do is hunt animals, great. If you accumulate assault weapons or carry in public, that's

a totally different thing. Most right wing gun cultists use the hunting excuse, and other such BS to obscure their real reasons for being gun cultists. They couldn't care less what it does to society.

[backwoodsbob]

182. some city folk don't understand...or care..that we rural folk stock meat by hunting

get over it hoyt...try to ban guns in big cities...you wont win that....and you sure as hell won't take guns away from rural farmers and hunters.

[Hoyt]

201. When you go to town, do you carry. What are you hunting or expect to run into, backwoodsbob?

[backwoodsbob]

206. I have NEVER carried in town

kind of ruins your argument doesn't it

[Hoyt]

209. Glad to hear it. Hope you convince your gun buddies to do same. Get well soon.

[backwoodsbob]

207. getting well

Last edited Mon Jan 7, 2013, 02:01 AM - Edit history (1)

Doc says I'm supposed to take it easy for a few days so I will leave you with this:

There are area's where we can work together if both sides could talk to each other instead of at each other

[LonePirate]

151. This city dweller knows the difference between a hunting rifle and an assault weapon

I am not convinced the NRA or its supporters know that difference, though.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

156. feel free to go educate them. you might want to use the correct term however:

assault rifle is the issue.

an assault *weapon* can be a knife, sword, or anything that is chosen in which to Assault a person.

comprehende?

[PavePusher]

239. One of these is my primary hunting weapon:

http://www.remington.com/en/product-families/firearms/centerfire-families/autoloading-model-r-15.aspx

Perhaps you can tell us what

the difference between a hunting rifle and an assault weapon

is, and what the defining features of each are?

[backwoodsbob]

317. what is the difference?

this should be good

[Squinch]

271. Most gun control measures being discussed would do nothing to prevent the use of guns for "living

off the land."

[Tuesday Afternoon]

273. *most* OK.... then there are only a *few* that are at issue here.

[Motown_Johnny]

3. That is what government food assistance is for.

Nobody in this country should need to hunt to feed their families.

[Buzz Clik]

6. Why?

That's like saying no one should be forced to grow their own food.

I don't get it.

[Motown_Johnny]

15. If people choose to grow their own food that is fine.

That is similar to people hunting and eating what they kill even though they can afford to feed themselves without hunting.

My objection is to the actual need to hunt. There should be some basic essentials that a society provides for it's members and IMO not starving to death because you haven't killed something in the last few days it high on the list.


It is very easy to injure yourself out in the wild. When I was living in the mountains of Colorado a neighbor of mine was out hunting and hurt himself badly. He was able to get back to a road )this is before cell phones) and he ended up being OK. If he needed to go back out the next day to hunt for food then he and his family would have been seriously screwed.

Hunting as a necessity is objectionable to me.

[obamanut2012]

26. But, it is a reality to many people in this country

Hunting and fishing feeds them. It shouldn't be like this is such a rich country, but it is.

[Eleanors38]

160. Purchasing food, meat or vegetables, means someone has killed animals for that purchase...

by either:
(1) Killing directly (hunting);
(2) Killing by agent (meat under cellophane); and
(3) Killing by abstraction (agriculture, which destroys whole ecosystems and distorts others).

Note also that injuries/deaths related to hunting have been on the decline, now, for several years.

It doesn't really matter if hunting is "objectionable" to you, or even if it is a "necessity." Clearly, it is a necessity for some -- esp. those who don't want to go on the dole. But for others (myself included), it can be economical and healthy.

[PavePusher]

240. Then 99.9% of human history is "objectionable" to you. Congrats. n/t

[PavePusher]

241. Oh, two other things.....

1. Some people would rather be self0sufficient than rely on the government to "save" or "help" them. Some people hear object to that concept, oddly enough. 'Tis a puzzlement.

2. "It is very easy to injure yourself out in the wild." Wow, brilliant non sequiteur of the day. And this differentiates "the wild" from any other place... how, exactly?

[obamanut2012]

7. That is never going to happen

At least not any time soon. They have CUT SNAP, and what Native Americans get is usually garbage, fatty cheese and processed carbs.

I am talking about reality, not a future utopia.

Sit down and talk to some of these people.

[Motown_Johnny]

25. I agree, it isn't happening now

but it is something that we should strive for.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

10. That is urban dweller talking point

who probably never lived off of government food assistance

[Motown_Johnny]

22. No, I never have lived off government food assistance

but I believe people should not starve to death simply because they could't kill something in the last few days.

It isn't a talking point. It is a social value.

The need to hunt to eat is offensive. If people want to hunt that is different.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

153. You must have been offended for a very long time

There are parts of the US where if there is no deer or elk in the freezer or smoke house, its going to be a long winter. Been that way for generations and still is.

Government assistance in many states is pitiful in content and amount.

A deer lasts more than a few days, rabbit not so much.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

11. please tell me that is sarcasm.

[Motown_Johnny]

19. No, people should not need to hunt to eat.

How can that possibly be sarcasm?

People should not starve to death because they haven't killed anything for a few days or because they injured themselves and are unable to hunt for a time.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

27. thank you for proving my point, Detroit City.

[backwoodsbob]

51. it isn't a matter of hunt or starve for the most part

I lived for years in the mountains of Virginia and most people I knew(me included)had a large chest freezer on the porch or in the garage or wherever just for deer meat.

It isn't eat or starve,it's taking the money you would have spent on meat and instead buying clothes for the kids or school supplies or whatever else is needed.Putting 800 to 1,000 pounds of meat in a freezer relatively cheaply frees up a lot of money for other needs.

[obamanut2012]

53. That is a point I also should have made

To pay the heating bill, to pay for doctor bills, to buy clothes for your kids, you hunt instead of going to Food Lion or Wal-Mart.

[Eleanors38]

162. Yep. It's called economical, light-on-the-land living. Been doing it for years.

[NoOneMan]

68. People should not need to deforest and soak the ground with fertilizers to eat

And people should not be dependent slaves to a system that is bent on destroying self-dependence/self-reliance via ecosystem destruction.

Agriculture is a scourge. All the "isms" that enforce agrarian slavery are a blight to humanity. The forager is the true free man. All your complex systems that ensure affluent malnutrition cannot exist without stripping people of their skills and dignity and exploiting their labor.

[upaloopa]

21. You know, showing your ignorance isn't the best thing to do.

What the hell good are blanket statements like that. Remember a saying "walk a mile in my shoes?"

Get off your smug perch and try living someone else s life before you say stupid shit like that.

I use to live in no man's land and those people can't get to any kind of government assistance. That's like those on the right who want to yank the safety net out from under the urban poor. These rural people use hunting as a safety net!

[LWolf]

28. The people in my area

who hunt to put protein on the table for their families would be aggressively offended by that idea.

The idea that they should give up providing for their families themselves, and let the government do it.

Food assistance for those who need it is fine, but taking away a family's ability to provide for themselves is not.

Wrong-headed statements like that are part of the reason this segment of the population is suspicious of and resistant to government programs to begin with.

[4 t 4]

259. if you use a .223 semi automatic rifle

or a bushmaster .223 calibur M4 carbine how is there much meat left to eat ? it is all shot up with holes! right?

[nadinbrzezinski]

264. Wrong

And this population tends to use really old riffles and shotguns anyway

Anyhow, I am not a gun fan, but no...one pull of the trigger is one bullet. These things are not fully automatic guns.

[4 t 4]

288. really ,you can actually just shoot

1 bullet at a time

[nadinbrzezinski]

291. Yes, to get technical

The gasses are used to push the sent round out as they push the bolt. They load the next round in. It takes one pull of the trigger to fire one bullet. Granted, you can do it very fast (4-6 rounds a second) but it takes one pull to fire one round.

[backwoodsbob]

316. one bullet at a time

squeeze the trigger...one bullet

[LWolf]

328. They don't.

The point is that they would rather hunt their protein with a legal tag than get government food assistance.

[IDoMath]

33. What happened to basic human dignity?

Many of those people who hunt for food don't qualify for food assistance for one reason or another.

Many are farmers who grow YOUR food but whose farms barely break even. They own land, yes, but they can't sell that land or they'd lose their livelihood.

Many of those farmers are tenant farmers who don't own their own land but don't qualify for food assistance.


These are people who manage to be self-sufficient. Why are you insisting on taking that away from them? Why are you insisting that they eat the chemically polluted crap that food assistance would allow them eat when they can get higher grade food by their own hand than you can get in your grocery store?

These are people who understand that they are part of the circle of life not outside or above it. When they take prey they try to follow the same rules as a hawk or bobcat. They take the slowest, the weakest, injured from the herd in order to keep the whole stronger. (Or perhaps you now want universal veterinary care for every wild animal out there). They do NOT go after the biggest rack. They take species which aren't supposed to be here in the first place. Species which have no natural predators and which would grow out of control but for their hunting.
Or perhaps we should just work to wipe out the species as a whole? Somehow I think that contradicts your thinking. Or maybe you want to round them all up and ship them back to their native lands where they are no longer adapted to?

You obviously know very little about actual hunting, i.e. taking prey for food. It's not the same as sport murder - killing animals for trophies.

[dkf]

36. In another thread someone said she was getting cut off food stamps because she couldn't get

Transportation to the job training center.

Food stamps aren't all that convenient either it seems, and the food it buys tends to be poor quality.

Hunting seems more nutritious actually and more natural. How do you get more organic than non farm raised meat?

[datasuspect]

67. you can eat much better from the land

than you could with government food assistance.

[NoOneMan]

73. Yes, ecologically destructive Monsanto corn vs nature-raised meat

Its a no-brainier. The system would prefer the former so that its malnourished masses need to rely perpetually on expensive, enslaving medical technology to fix their diseases and cancer.

[datasuspect]

77. all manufactured food is poison

[Arcanetrance]

121. Not really a few years ago I was so broke I only made enough to pay my bills I applied

For assistance and was awarded a whole $16 in food stamps mind you this me living in nyc

[Puha Ekapi]

123. "Government food assistance"

is a major factor in the poor health of Native communities across North America. Go ahead, live on commod cheese, canned meat and powdered milk and see how long you stay healthy. I personally prefer real food to anything purchased in stores.

[backwoodsbob]

171. dude I lived in Detroit for 21 years

some of my best hunting trips were with my Detroit buddies up on the Holten Lake area

[gollygee]

250. A month of food stamps don't pay enough to feed a family for a whole month

And meat is expensive. I know lots of people who hunt to feed their families. And who fish to feed their families as well.

[Buzz Clik]

4. Very few people want to get rid of firearms used for legitimate hunting

[yewberry]

30. Agreed.

The "you people just don't understand" arguments foster more feelings of division between two already-alienated points of view.

[obamanut2012]

32. Tell it to other DUers

That is why I posted this, because many people do not get it, even in this thread. There is a current OP wanting to seize all guns, and many posts in that and other threads wanting ex defacto and regressive taxes against ALL gun owners.

People in this country live in dire straits, where they can literally starve to death. I have talked to these people, I have known them and talked to them, and helped them as much as I could.

"You people just don't understand" is legit. Many people don't.

[Tempest]

55. No one wants to ban all weapons.

Stop telling that lie already.

[slackmaster]

57. It's not a lie. There are a few radicals in our midst who would ban all firearms.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2141246

[Tempest]

60. Wow. You're still taking their post out of context. Even after attempts to correct you. n/t

[slackmaster]

62. Your silly rationalization doesn't change the reality that the individual would ban ALL firearms

Even ones used by law enforcement people.

[Tempest]

72. At least you admit you took the poster's comment out of context by your silence.

Now you should apologize to them for continuing to do so.

[slackmaster]

76. I took nothing out of context. The poster I pointed out would ban all firearms with no exceptions.

Which makes him or her a bit LESS of a hypocrite than typical police-state authoritarian gun prohibitionists; the unrealistic nature of the idea notwithstanding.

[guardian]

64. Not true

Some do. Many antigunners simply want a variety of restrictions that fall in spectrum of gun control/denial goals. However there is a vocal minority that want to ban private ownership of all firearms. So YOU should stop telling that lie already.

[Tempest]

70. Until you provide evidence, I'm considering it a lie.

Where are the posts from "many DUers" who want to ban ALL GUNS AS THE POSTER CLAIMED?

[obamanut2012]

80. I am not a liar

So knock it off.

There is not only a CURRENT OP stating that, but many posts. MANY.

[Eleanors38]

168. Sorry, but the pages in DU (in & out of the Gungeon) over the last 2 wks indicate otherwise. nt

[ProgressiveProfessor]

215. Some clearly have said as much

Naming names would be a callout...not falling for that gambit

[yewberry]

74. Mm-hm.

There are posts all over the board expressing points of view across the spectrum regarding gun ownership, so I hardly think that's reason for yet another OP excoriating "you people."

And gee, thanks for the info about hunger. I had no idea, because apparently 'city people' have no experience with the world beyond our soy lattes and Whole Food stores. And you've actually talked to these hungry people? Oh, my stars!

Please. Condescension and alienation is not a good ally-building strategy.

[obamanut2012]

82. You love saying this OP is about "you people"

When, posts show that many people do not have a clue how many people HAVE to live.

I LOVE how you have twice claimed I am trying to divide people, when I am actually trying to unite people, and have everyone understand where everyone is coming from.

I'm not one trying to stop discussion and finding common ground. Interesting some are saying I am. Very interesting.

[yewberry]

152. How about a post claiming that rural people don't have a clue about poverty or hunger

because they've never eaten out of a dumpster? Would that be different?

[Rosa Luxemburg]

103. Most have bows and arrows around here

[RebelOne]

113. And that is the cruelest form of hunting.

If the deer was hit in a non-vital area, it could run off and suffer.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

229. same with a poor shot from a gun

[KittyWampus]

244. Arrow hunting is now illegal in NY State.

[Lurker Deluxe]

337. .

http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/wildlife_pdf/huntingseasons1213.pdf

Bow season for 2013. New York State has some of the most strict hunting laws around, but bow hunting will always be legal in the US.

As you will notice, bow season is always before gun season, once gun season opens you can continue to bow hunt during that season as well.

[KittyWampus]

341. Hmm, I just posted that since Dec of 2012, crossbows are now illegal in NY State.

I've never known anyone who used bows and arrows to hunt deer.

[NYC_SKP]

5. K/R. I'm afraid that many who support taxes, confiscatio etc., don't have a clue about rural folks.

I, too, am against blood sports and sport hunting unless you eat what you kill, and I still don't like it.

But what cows and pigs and chickens go through on the way to our dinner plates is beyond sickening but how many people care?

OTOH, most of us can agree that ARs and high capacity magazines have nothing to do with getting protein from the land.

That's an entirely different argument!

[obamanut2012]

9. Yup -- exactly

[PavePusher]

243. This is my primary hunting weapon:

http://www.remington.com/product-families/firearms/centerfire-families/autoloading-model-r-15.aspx

And it is illegal to hunt most game with "high capacity magazines".

[HockeyMom]

8. If you sprayed the game with a slew of bullets

wouldn't you render it unedible? My husband used to hunt deer and that is what he used say. Makes sense to me.

[obamanut2012]

14. Hunters do not use automatics to hunt

No one does, except possibly is some kind of weird canned hunts. You cannot "spray" semi automatic fire. There is no way to mess up a deer with a hunting rifle in that way.

Your husband may mean certain shotgun fire, which can "explode" very small game like rabbits or quail. I have hunters in my extended family. Poor people will pick out the pellets and eat the game.

[Recursion]

85. Fortunately nobody hunts with automatic weapons

They hunt for the most part with semi-automatic weapons, with most states requiring low-capacity magazines (5-10; it varies), at least for deer.

For rabbits and birds it's usually with shotguns; semi-automatics are less popular there.

[PavePusher]

245. Actually, most states specify 5 round magazine or less for hunting. n/t

[Frustratedlady]

12. We aren't talking about guns used for hunting.

We are trying to get rid of the assault weapons and clips. It blows my mind that anyone can argue against it.

[obamanut2012]

18. Yes, many posters are

Which is why I posted this OP. There is even an OP about doing it, and many posts made last night and today about taxing every gun, making owners pay for a yearly license, taxing ammo and reloading supplies REALLY high, advocating ex defacto taxes.

You are setting up a strawman of something I never said.

And, many guns people want banned actually ARE hunting rifles.

[Frustratedlady]

75. I haven't seen hunting rifles mentioned, but then I don't know the acronyms.

I'm referring to the guns that should never have been approved...military-style guns.

People surely don't use those to kill deer.

I don't want to argue with anyone about guns. I just don't EVER want to see another massacre of our children like we just had or of citizens who are in the wrong place at the wrong time, say, watching a movie. Even gun lovers have to agree this has gone beyond sane reasoning.

[obamanut2012]

83. Many posts and a few OPs wanting to ban all guns

And tax guns and ammos, and other regressive taxes.

So, yes.

However, that isn't what my OP is about. It's about understanding how many Americans HAVE to live.

[Recursion]

91. "Military style" guns are very popular for hunting

They're ergonomic and comfortable to fire, and they for the most part fire smaller rounds than traditional hunting rifles (though the chambering of everything has gotten so varied that this isn't all that true anymore).

[PavePusher]

246. Almost every hunting firearm commonly used is derived directly from a military design. n/t

[Duckhunter935]

297. hunting rifles

based on military version, yes but adapted for hunting. These are some of the weapons people want to ban.

http://www.remington.com/product-families/firearms/centerfire-families/autoloading-model-r-15.aspx

http://www.ruger.com/products/mini14RanchRifle/specSheets/5816.html

[nadinbrzezinski]

106. Some here are talking of the fringe argument

Of banning all guns. A few are arguing that the AR is the same as a hunting weapon.

Suffice it to say, complete banning is fringe and fantasy.

[Frustratedlady]

111. I agree. I'm nowhere near a fan of guns,

but there is no way that would happen. Maybe it's a good place to start negotiations, then the automatics/clips won't seem like such a loss.

What's the number up to now for deaths from guns since Newtown? We sure keep the casketmakers busy. Is that sad, or what?

The Constitution was framed with common sense for that period of time. It would be refreshing if the hotheads used some common sense when applying their advice to today's situations. I didn't see any automatics/clips mentioned in the original document.

[nadinbrzezinski]

115. Not only that

The 2nd was framed to maintain militias, not individual rights.

But since we need to deal with that, I am no fan of a civil war.

[randr]

16. While there are still people who eat what they hunt,

they are a smaller and smaller group of people. It would be rare to find anyone who hunts to live.
The vast numbers of people who hunt are doing it for sport, and it is a very expensive sport I might add.
Living in the heart of Colorado Elk County I have witnessed events beyond my imagination surrounding so called "hunters". We more often refer to many who come here as "Trophy Hunters" than not. Arriving with a fleet of vehicles and paying upwards of $50,000 to kill a captive elk on private property is hardly sport and could never be considered as subsistence hunting. As with the gun control issue at large, the hunting argument to own guns is more and more about the money and less and less about our rights.

[obamanut2012]

20. No, it isn't rare at all

Thank you for proving why my OP was needed.

There's a reason why many states have made it legal to take fresh roadkill for food.

[Earth_First]

35. Oh please...what a horrible example to prove your point.

Trophy kills have in no way outpaced Joe Buck and his crew of weekend warriors in the backwoods of America.

Give me a break.

[randr]

49. The business of hunting for sport here in Colorado is huge

take it away and the subsidies provided by such will put a hole in the DOW budget big enough to drive one of those trailways buses they love to hunt from through. Without the moneys flowing in to fund the work of the DOW there would be significant reductions of herds and more restrictions on weekend warriors of which I consider myself.

[Earth_First]

56. Sure. However, your example is pointless in the "hunt to live" discussion...

You claim that there is more "trophy hunt" hunters than hunters who typically hunt for freezer caches.

I find that hard to believe. Your example in Colorado is certainly not typical of Western, NY or Central Kentucky where a $50,000 trophy hunt is two or three times the household income of some households.

[Lurker Deluxe]

50. It goes to the discussion

"It would be rare to find anyone who hunts to live"

Maybe in your circle, in mine I know many. Just some math ...

Average dress out of a south Texas deer, 75 pounds. Number of deer that you can harvest, 3. That is 225 pounds of meat, average $5 a pound. $1,125. The cost of that? Box of bullets, hunting license, type II license if you want to go to Sam Houston National, Davy Crockett is still Type I and has no cost.

I haven't deer hunted in a decade, to me it is alot of work. Which it is if you are hunting for meat. However, many of my friends still hunt every year in the same place we have gone for 20 years. I still go very now and again and I get called "camp bitch" by a couple of very good old friends.

Later this year the crappie will begin to run in the north end of Lake Conroe. I will make a couple of trips up there in Feb/March to get my fill. Daily limit is 10, 25 on you anytime. A crappie comes out to two nice fillets, which would run you about $6 pound. I'll put about 40 or so of those fillets in my freezer and more than likely (my boat) a friend or two will toss me some deer sausage and a hind quarter.

Now, well this may not be the definition of "hunt to live", it damn sure is a nice way to get out of the house, enjoy the outdoors, and put some fresh meat in the freezer. If you are not into that kind of thing that is great, you can get all your stuff from the grocery, but do not every begin to think that there are not millions of people who use hunting and fishing to supplement their family.

And yea, none of these guys would even think for a second of taking government money to buy the food instead of getting it this way.

[Eleanors38]

181. I bought a new freezer this Fall. And it's full, now...

I have got my expenses for venison down to >$2/lb. (I always talk up hunting at parties, and between the uber-urbans walking off mumbling, someone will say: "Oh, you like to hunt?" From there, I get an invite (two places a year to hunt deer), practice at local ranges, buy used duds, use a pawnshop rifle, pay the license/fees, gas, food, beer and w__d, and off I go to get my food the old fashioned way. Helps to supplement my $808/SS payment. And the experience of hunting is something no one will understand if they haven't tried it.

[FedUpWithIt All]

92. We recently lived in WV for a few years.

We knew quite a few families who used hunting as a way to supplement the feeding of their families. Subsistence hunting is certainly a way of life where we lived.

[BainsBane]

321. Look, I'm no fan of guns

But I live in MN, a state filled with hunters who eat game. The circumstances you describe are not common because few people have that much money. I myself don't own a gun and am an adamant supporter of gun control, but there is nothing wrong with hunting as long as one eats their kill. It is far more humane than the conditions livestock are subjected to.

[In_The_Wind]

17. If we couldn't eat it we threw it back.

I went fishing instead of hunting.

A few of my uncles were hunters.
I love to eat venison but I can't bring myself to shoot bambi.

Many of the hunters in NY are in the same situation (as you mentioned re:NC & TN)
of needing to hunt or eat more beans.

[obamanut2012]

23. Exactly

Thanks for understand the desperate straits of so many Americans. In such a rich country, people should not have to hunt or fish to eat.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

29. do you want to force people to only eat food from stores? I prefer to eat wild game and local fish.

[obamanut2012]

34. I'm a vegetarian, so I wouldn't hunt or fish anyway

Unless I HAD to, to live. But, even people in this thread and saying my OP is just trying to divide people on gun control, when it isn't even about gun control. It's about people not getting that many Americans would basically starve at worst, and be badly malnourished at best, if they couldn't hunt or fish.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

41. I am fine with you being an herbivore. Are you OK with me being a carnivore?

I choose to live frugally and simply. Self reliant and less strain on the grid.

[obamanut2012]

44. I am the one who wrore the OP

WTF are you arguing with me???

[Tuesday Afternoon]

46. I know. I rec'd it. Would you prefer I unrec it?

[obamanut2012]

52. I do not get why you are kinda attacking me

I also don't post OPs for recs.

Good God. I do not get your point in this subthread.

I am done.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

89. sorry. did not mean to offend. asking questions is all. I will unrec.

[Starry Messenger]

31. K&R

[obamanut2012]

37. My OP isn't about gun control or the NRA

It's about understanding how certain people live. Some of the ignorance on this subject in other threads has been a bit appalling to me.

I don't hunt and never would, unless I was starving. I quit fishing about 15 years ago. But, I have enough education to have a decent job so I can afford to buy my food.

[handmade34]

114. wow, you stepped into something

having been raised in the country and a witness to many around me hunting for the food (many would go without if no game was caught) I understand what you're saying.

This thread and experience tells me that all of us often can only empathize with what we have experienced first hand.

I solved this concern for myself years ago by deciding not to eat meat anymore... but I have no problem with people hunting deer, rabbit, bear, etc that have been deemed populous enough so that there is a need to control their numbers. I do support a "well-regulated" citizenry w/firearms...

But... if we are going to deal with understanding each other... I do have one issue with your statement "I have enough education to have a decent job so I can afford to buy my food."

I also know many people with 'enough education' (college degrees, masters, PHD's, etc) and with work experience (and work ethic) that cannot find a decent job so that they can buy their food...

It's a complicated world full of a very diverse people...

[IDoMath]

38. This is why the lib/con split is also an urban/rural split

Urbanites and rural folk *really* need to talk to each other about how guns effect their lives.

Rural folk don't understand what the urban folk fear. They don't understand living in a high density space where one stray bullet can result in a dead child. They don't understand being in a space where having a gun is more liability than its worth.

Urban folk don't realize that guns are also tools. They are taken out on ranches and farms everyday as another tool. They may be used to kill a rattlesnake or wild a rabid animal. They may have to be used to euthanize an injured animal. Children are taught firearm safety from a very young age. They are taught when and how to use them ethically, effectively and safely.

These discussions are being conducted in the wrong places and between the wrong people. We are talking past each other. Its not just that we have different perspectives its that we lack a common base of experience to start from.

[obamanut2012]

39. I think this is a wonderful post

You said it better than I did in my OP.

If you ever feel brave, this would make a terrific OP.

Also, lots of rural Dems are around!

[IDoMath]

238. OK, it's up there. For better or worse I expanded it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022144708

[Tuesday Afternoon]

43. +1

[Recursion]

93. +1

well said

[War Horse]

190. I'll respond to a gun thread for the first time

just to say "good post". If only there were more like this.

[formercia]

40. The amount of Fish and Game that can be taken is regulated

to maintain a healthy population. If Deer were left to their own devices and not hunted or culled, overpopulation would lead to disease and starvation for many.
I don't Hunt anymore, but I understand those who do to feed their families and to provide for those in need.
Maine has a program where Deer and Moose can be donated, where they are properly processed and given to those in need.
I am concerned about the motives of those who make blanket statements about banning guns and hunting. Some are sincere but I think many do it just to create hate and divisiveness among the population.

[Denninmi]

42. Ok, but I have questions.

How does this work vis a vis seasons on fish and game? With limited seasons, you need a way to preserve, and I wouldn't think people so poor they live at a subsistence level can run down to Sears or Best Buy and pick up a new freezer, or down to Kitchen Glamour for a Food Saver and bags, or canning equipment.

I know some things are legal to take all year here in Michigan, like pan fish, but most fish and game have limited seasons.

So, are people just poaching and hope they don't get caught?

[obamanut2012]

45. Why don't you ask someone poor if they are poachers?

I'm not snarking. Sit down and talk to them and ask them how they feed themselves and their families.

Ask a Game Warden if they ever look the other way.

Feral hogs are considered vermin in NC, and can be hunted year round with no license.

Also, you can make jerky even in a suburban kitchen. I did it when I used to eat meat, because it was much cheaper than buying it.

You can also salt meat quite easily.

[Lars39]

59. Used freezers, cheap freezer bags and margarine tubs do the job.

[Recursion]

95. And you can build a smokehouse in your backyard (nt)

[Lars39]

100. Yep

Want some ham now for some reason.

[FedUpWithIt All]

101. Most of the families we knew in WV would home can the venison they caught.

Canning equipment is largely reusable so the cost, after the initial can be quite low. It was not uncommon for canning equipment to be handed down.

[Eleanors38]

205. Some answers...

I started off with a cast-off freezer (free), then got a new one for $168; you can find them for less at scratch & dent appliance stores -- most of them new. Still others (our family did this) share freezer space with a neighbor in return for a snapper or deer fore quarter.

In Texas, for exp., you get a daily limit of fish and game birds, which doesn't prevent you from hunting more days; the limits just re-cycle to Zero. Deer are capped at a maximum of 5/yr. (gracious plenty), but in Alabama you get only one. Per day! Feral hogs in most states are lightly regulated (if at all), so you can shoot all you can stand, esp. in the South. The wildlife management area 55 miles north of Austin offers year-round squirrel hunting (10/day). IIRC, most fresh water fishing in the South is open year-round, and have only length, species and quantity limits per day.

There are always poachers, a few of whom think it is their duty to violate laws. Not many, but they make the occupation of game warden a dangerous profession.

BTW, I save my game/fish in blocks of ice, frozen in (re) used Ziplocs or decapped gallon milk jugs.

[PavePusher]

248. Used freezers and fridges can be quite cheap, especially if you do your own repairs.

I know lots of pretty poor people who have several. None of them was bought new anywhere by the current owners.

Canning equipment lasts for generations. My pressure cooker is probably 40 years old. Recycled jars used for years. Lids-you're only suppoesed to use once. Yeah, right....

Smoking is a low-cost, low-tech preservation method for meat.

Depending on location, fall game can be hung in an unheated shed and keep all winter.

Fishing is year-round most places. And fishing "licences" are honored more in the breach than the deed where I come from. Time-honored tradition.

[Coyotl]

47. I will feel safer while out hunting for my food if no one in the woods has an AR-15.

Not to mention M-60's

[Duckhunter935]

61. MK 19 is better

hit a wider area at distance

[Recursion]

97. Why?

I'd rather my fellow hunters be firing .223 than 30-06. Wouldn't you?

[Aerows]

48. I've known a few people

that if it were not for venison and fishing, there would be no meat on the table. That said, I still don't know why anyone needs an AR-15 or a 30 round ammo clip.

EDIT: And we've discussed feral hogs before. A shotgun stops everything in its tracks.

[PavePusher]

249. I can't think of any place it's legal to hunt dear with a 30-round magazine.

They make 5-round magazines specifically for this purpose.

And this makes an excellent hunting weapon, albeit I prefer a heavier caliber:
http://www.remington.com/product-families/firearms/centerfire-families/autoloading-model-r-15.aspx

[Tempest]

54. What does hunting have to do with assault rifles and 30 cartridge magazines?

Stop conflating the issue.

[slackmaster]

58. I don't believe any state permits hunting with a 30-round magazine

Other than for pest control.

[Tempest]

63. Your post is completely irrelevant to the original poster's statements. n/t

[slackmaster]

66. As is your snarky little quip about assault rifles and 30-round magazines

[Tempest]

69. What's snarky about bringing up what the real issue is?

And the issue is assault rifles and 30 round magazines, not hunting rifles.

And I get it, there's no compromise to you when it comes to gun issues.

Mongo say all guns good, any gun control bad.

[slackmaster]

71. The issue per the OP is "All this talk of taxing weapons and ammo, or taxing owners..."

Which makes no distinction between "good" vs. "bad" guns or ammo, and in truth would only affect "good" gun owners because the bad ones are criminals who wouldn't pay.

And I get it, there's no compromise to you when it comes to gun issues.

I'm willing to give any plan a fair airing. Please don't pigeon-hole me into some weird Bogeyman fantasy of your own creation.

[Tempest]

78. MAJOR FAIL on your part

The issue is hunting.

One throwaway sentence on taxing doesn't make the post about taxing.

Look again at the headline.

[obamanut2012]

90. You really want to make my OP something it obvious isn't

Epic fail on your part.

I am totally not some anti gun control poster. It is hysterical you are making it like I am.

[slackmaster]

108. Please see reply #88

HTH

[obamanut2012]

88. Exactly -- thanks

[Eleanors38]

211. Since the OP was about hunting, but now is drifting into gun-control politics...

Please note that most "hunting rifles" developed from military-types. The nice walnut furnished .30-'06 an old family member used on deer was a knock-off of Springfield, Mauser, Krag, etc. "military-type" rifles. Similarly, the "military-type" Garand M1 became the foundation for semi-auto hunting rifles, though some pre-dated* even the Garand. These semi-auto "military-type" rifles are now considered obsolete for the military, which provides its soldiers with rifles capable of FULL-AUTO fire. So, once again the military sheds its armored skin, and civilians can choose to update with modified versions of what-were-once military weapons.

In many if not most hunting situations, you cannot use extended magazines, and some states ban the .223 caliber round (the type used in the murders in Connecticut) for hunting as being too weak for a "clean" kill of large game. So many of these AR rifles are re-chambered for bigger rounds, and doused in camo patterns. Why? They are becoming the new hunting weapons.

*The Remington Model 8 and later Model 81, has been around for over 100 years (production ceased in 1951). It has a fat .35 caliber cartridge, and fires semi-automatically. It was the first big-caliber semi-auto weapon made in the U.S.

And it was designed ground up as a hunting weapon, though police used some modified versions (SEE: Bonnie & Clyde's demise).

[obamanut2012]

86. My OP is about poor people needing to hunt to live

Anything else you imagine it's about is nothing but a product of your imagination. Making my OP into some kind of pro high-capacity argument is ludicrous and clueless.

[obamanut2012]

84. Nothing, and I didn't even mention specific weapons or magazines

YOU did. YOU are the one conflating an issue, not me.

My OP is nothing about that, which is obvious.

It's about how desperate certain people are in this country, and talking about banning all guns, or having special taxes for gun owners and ammo is incredible regressive, because there is a demographic of Americans who use guns to, literally, survive.

[StrayKat]

65. The smartass reply to this is. . .

Well, they can use the knives, credit cards, pencils, and everything else the NRA and gun enthusiasts are also claiming can be used as weapons.

Guns and bullets are not good solutions to the problems of hunger and poverty.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

79. Maybe 0.1% do. Not a compelling reason

To build gun safety and gun control legislation around.

[obamanut2012]

96. A link to your .1%?

You have just proved my point that many DUers -- as well as many Americans -- don't know the desperation of so many Americans when it comes to food. I wish the First Lady would address this type of "food desert" even more. She has done such a terrific job educating Americans on food issues.

A link to where I said gun control laws should be based on poor folks hunting for food?

Those of you thinking my OP is about HIGH CAPACITY MAGAZINES and other anti gun control issues is not only hysterical, since I am totally not anti regulations, but also proves my point. Many people never consider the needs of the poor on any issue.

[Warren Stupidity]

127. you made the original claim: where is your data?

[nadinbrzezinski]

104. Far more than 0.01%

And it's all over the country.

This does not say we can't have background checks and limit certain families of guns.

But seriously, go to your local res, if you can, as an example...and have a heart to heart.

[Warren Stupidity]

137. link?

yet another person asserting that a substantial number of people use hunting as an essential part of their food supply.

People may like to hunt, most might eat what they hunt, I really doubt that more than a very few people need to hunt for their survival.

[nadinbrzezinski]

140. Go to the reservation.

I am as serious as a heart attack

In my back country people also hunt and fish to eat.

It is so unreal that you can check this

http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=subsistence.hunting

And this


http://www.nps.gov/wrst/parkmgmt/subsistence-hunting.htm

And here, some issues (real mind you) related to it

http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1993-03-28/sports/1993087215_1_subsistence-hunting-patapsco-river-migratory-birds

Scratching the surface.

It is enough where permits are given by blm. In some places, cough Alaska cough, it is a way of life.

But hey, denial ain't just a river in Egypt.

Sorry if this does not match your ideas.

I wish everybody could avoid it, but more than a few people do depend on it.

Nor do they need AR-15s

[Warren Stupidity]

141. Well thanks for links that indicate nothing other than "there exist some people who might be

categorized as subsistence hunters".

The claims made repeatedly by you and others here is that "many" peopls are subsistence hunters: people who hunt to survive. I understand that "many" is a word that means essentially "more than zero", but so far not one of the claimants have provided a single link that indicates just what proportion of the population are subsistence hunters.

[nadinbrzezinski]

143. Also common in Appalachia.

Which shoud tell you something. Direct relationship to deep poverty.

Denial from urbanites is funny.

It's also common in my back country...

But hey...you, like me, must live n a city.

Here, academic paper regarding Appalachia.

http://www.sas.upenn.edu/folklore/faculty/mhufford/FolkloreinAppalachia.pdf

One of the reasons we lack definite numbers is...quite frankly, the poaching.

It's far from majority, but rural poor are not the majority of poor either.

Nor do they use 3,000 riffles, with the latest in attachments. In many cases these are 100 year old guns passed from father to son.

[Warren Stupidity]

146. again, an unsubstantiated assertion.

15% of our population hunts. A very small fraction of those people could be categorized as subsistence hunters.

[nadinbrzezinski]

148. From urbanites

We all imagine it at guess...and that is why BLM gives those permits. The Feds really must be in la la land to give 'em

I guess your handle fits you too.

Second person in one day. Wow...who'd think.

[MightyMopar]

165. Who cares! They don't vote for us for a bunch of issues and we can win elections without them

If it wasn't for gerrymandering, we wouldn't have to care about them now. We need to quit kowtowing to people who won't vote for multiracial, multicultural, secularist party, progovernt party no matter what we do.

[nadinbrzezinski]

166. I do...but I have not subsumed my politics to my humanity.

[MightyMopar]

169. Who is more important city people or rurals? Both, but city people vote for us and rurals vote Puke

We need to work on building up our base by registering and helping our own first

[nadinbrzezinski]

172. You go right ahead

This is why rural red state reps (or deep rural districts) voted not to aide Sandy victims.

They put politics ahead of the nation.

I won't do that...you go right ahead.

Of course you are familiar with voter suppression.

[MightyMopar]

183. Part of the reason the south has so much power is because the rest of the nation subsidizes them

I would rather scarce resources go to our people, we subsidized the red states and rural areas enough, lets help the rustbelt and our voters.

[nadinbrzezinski]

188. If this was not laughable.

Read the constitution and how configures amen are allocated.

That is number one.

Number two, the rust bell is also a recipient, donor states are on the two coasts.

Here

http://www.beezernotes.com/wordpress/?tag=donor-states

[MightyMopar]

193. Did you read your own chart?

[nadinbrzezinski]

195. Yes

And unless you live in a donor state, which PA is not, and it is a rust stae.

$1.07

Now Texas is a donor state at 0.94

So how is that broad brush doing?

[MightyMopar]

234. 20 out of the top 25 taker states voted for Romney & 2 of the 5 that voted Obama have Puke governor

Old survey anyhow.

[nadinbrzezinski]

235. And... We should ignore them cause

We are mean and want revenge, yippee.

[hughee99]

228. Though I'm not sure the number is accurate, still, isn't .1% about 350,000 people?

Are you suggesting that if something only affects 350,000 people (presumably, PER YEAR) that we shouldn't take it into consideration when drawing up legislation?

[Warren Stupidity]

281. No the suggestion is that .1% of the population should not be claimed as "many".

And that doing so is dishonest. There are certainly things that could be done to insure that any gun control legislation did not interfere with our very small population of subsistence hunters ability to continue their way of life. The op is bullshit. I've asked repeatedly for the op and others to quantify their claims of "many people". Nobody has come with with any data at all. Nothing.

[hughee99]

300. That's not the suggestion I was responding to.

"Maybe 0.1% do. Not a compelling reason to build gun safety and gun control legislation around."

That's what I was responding to. You can call that "many", "few", or a "plethora", but it doesn't matter, it's still about 350,000 people, and YES, THIS poster is suggesting that they should not be considered when crafting gun safety and gun control legislation.

It seemed to me a little wacky that someone would imply that we need to do something for the roughly 32,000 people who die each year from gun related injuries (accidental and intentional), but shouldn't even consider the 350,000 people that the poster concedes need to hunt for food.

[Go Vols]

301. You could not find data either

350k people is alot to me,I know its not in the big scheme.I personally know of a few that live off the land year round.

[graham4anything]

81. Why does someone from those areas need to come to CT and shoot the kids in a CT School?

why would someone need to conceal and carry and have a gun in a street to do any of this by their home

according to your example, they are too poor
therefore they would not be able to travel and don't need a gun elsewhere

so how possibly would getting guns off the street affect these people(who could usea bow and arrow like the native americans did to hunt anyhow).

[obamanut2012]

99. lol

[Paladin]

94. And Do These Subsistence Hunters Use $1400 Bushmaster AR-15's? (nt)

[Recursion]

98. Many do, particularly for smaller animals

In standard chambering it would be iffy for taking down a deer, but they're very popular for coyotes and groundhogs. Also you can buy it chambered in 7.62, which is appropriate for deer (though the increased weight takes away most of the advantages of the AR platform).

[appleannie1]

107. I use a shotgun and have never had a problem hitting what I aim at or killing with one shot.

[Paladin]

116. You Kinda Missed My Point. Care To Take Another Try?

Helpful hint: It has to do with the "$1400" part......

[Recursion]

117. There are much cheaper AR-15's, or there were until recently

The difference in a $500 AR and a $1400 AR is whether the barrel and bolt will last for 10 years or 100.

That said, apparently AR's can't be found for love or money anymore.

[obamanut2012]

102. What in the world does that have to do with my OP???

Posters trying to make this some kind of anti gun control or pro high capacity mag OP are proving my OP.

[Paladin]

118. I Am Pro-Gun Control And I Have A Problem With Hi-Cap Mags. (nt)

[obamanut2012]

196. What in the world does that do with poor folks hunting?

I am very pro gun control and I am a gun owner. That has nothing to do with my OP nor poor folks being cut out of this and every other discussion in this country.

[appleannie1]

105. When the kids were young it is why we had a rifle and shotgun.

[99Forever]

112. Precisely how "many"...

... is "many?" 50? 1,000? 1,000,000?

I hear "many" people think Barack Obama is a Socialist and was born in Kenya too.

[im a Belieber]

120. First of all, since when is dead flesh necessary to live?

And what about ROAD KILL?????

[NoOneMan]

125. Agriculturalists have proven for 10K years that it is not with their staples

Though, they've suffered malnutrition, numerous famines and a whole lot of diseases due to their unnatural approach.

[slackmaster]

142. Fascinating

[Eleanors38]

217. For most it isn't. But I prefer to do less harm to the environment,

not set policy around the aesthetics and sympathies of food choices when both natural meat and organic vegetables are both excellent choices.

Who does more harm? The person buying even organic veggies from a even a well-run farm which has displaced or distorted an ecosystem, or the person who shoots one or two deer a year (beating coyotes, pumas, disease, etc. to the punch)?

BTW, Florida allows the taking of road kill; Texas does not. Got figure, but I think it's because Florida went for Obama. Twice.

[green for victory]

122. hunting soybeans can be done with knives

have to sneak up on them though



The New White Meat
No hormones, no blood, no antibiotics, no sweat
Protein for the Future!

[alphafemale]

163. yuck. nt.

[bluestate10]

124. No one is talking about banning guns that are used for hunting game.

I have issues with the all animals are sacred people too, but limiting ownership of assault weapons has not logical relationship to limiting hunting for food. The idea of taxing bullets make sense in some cases, but not all. Taxing bullets would be a hard effort to execute as policy because some system would have to exist to track bullet purchases by a specific gun owner.

[JEB]

128. Most good hunters only need one shot to kill a deer.

Not much tax there.

[RebelOne]

130. But if it is not a clean kill,

and that deer runs off and is not found, it suffers an agonizing and painful death

[Eleanors38]

225. Usually takes me one round. Plus scores more for practice, so I can use one round.

[PavePusher]

252. I (and many other people) use one of these for hunting:

http://www.remington.com/product-families/firearms/centerfire-families/autoloading-model-r-15.aspx

Some people want to ban them.

So, the link is quite direct.

[Warren Stupidity]

126. "many" - please provide the statistics.

This is the second time today I've seen something like this clam here. The vast majority of Americans do not hunt at all, from the research I did. I could not find any stats on how many people use hunting as the primary source of food (an earlier assertion not yours) or as an essential source of food.

Percentage of population that hunts, 2011: 15%. Source http://www.census.gov/prod/2012pubs/fhw11-nat.pdf

My guess on your "many" is less than 1% of the population.

[JEB]

129. I seriously doubt

that any proposed gun or bullet regulations will stop anyone from hunting for meat.

[madrchsod]

131. my father in law hunted most of his life.

he fished ,trapped,and hunted. the fish he sold and the varmints he sold for fur. over the years the deer went to his family and they did`t need he gave away many to families who needed food.

i think most if not all hunters eat or give away what they kill. one does`t leave game to rot.

[Warren Stupidity]

135. which is quite different than "had to hunt to put food on the table". nt.

[Eleanors38]

224. Deer meat has become a big component of food banks due to Hunters for the Hungry...

and similar programs. Here in Travis County, deer are killed when they overrun the carrying capacity of county lands; but the field-dressed deer are taken to local processors, thence to food banks. I know of a lady whose job is to negotiate the paperwork necessary to ensure anti-"market hunt" laws are followed. I believe feral hogs are handled in a similar way.

[ROFF]

132. There is another reason for hunting. Population control

When I was young (50 years ago) we would shoot gophers if they became to numerous. Cattle would step into their holes, break a leg and have to be destroyed. We hunted to keep their populations down. In those years farmers kept chickens, so fox and coyote populations were kept under control. Now farmers do not as a rule keep chickens so fox and coyote numbers are climbing and they are keeping the gopher populations in check.

One day in the late '50s a group of farmers went on a rabbit hunt. The rabbits were at the top of one of their population cycles and were basically starving, eating everything in sight endangering orchards and farm windbreaks. In about three hours we shot about 40 cubic feet of rabbits (that is what the trailer held). The dead rabbits were sold to the local mink rancher to pay our expenses.

The hunters in our area tried to even out the effect of human influences so that no one species overpopulation harmed the environment. Now our major problem is deer and moose. Last week a person was killed in a car/moose collision near here (Close to Bruno Saskatchewan)

[MightyMopar]

133. Come on, you can buy a can of chicken cheaper than bullets

[Coyotl]

144. Come on, you can buy one bullet cheaper than one cow

[Warren Stupidity]

134. Hunting is big business for gun manufacturers. ACTUAL FACTS ACTUAL DATA.

Source: http://www.census.gov/prod/2012pubs/fhw11-nat.pdf

Total equipment expenditures for
hunting were $14.0 billion in 2011,
41 percent of all hunting expenses.
Hunting equipment, such as guns and
rifles, telescopic sights, and ammunition, composed $7.7 billion, or
55 percent of all equipment costs.
Expenditures for auxiliary equipment, including camping equipment, binoculars, and special hunting
clothing, accounted for $1.8 billion or
13 percent of all equipment expenses.
Special equipment, such as campers or
all-terrain vehicles, amounted to $4.4
billion or 31 percent of all equipment
expenditures.

Spare me the bullshit about survival hunting. Bring the stats on how many of the 15% of the population that hunts are doing so as an essential part of their food supply, or admit that you have no facts to back your OP.

[Go Vols]

302. It cost me

about 30 cents to kill a deer from my deck.

[Warren Stupidity]

325. It likely costs a bit more than that.

In my state it costs $22 for a hunting license. You get one deer tag. You have to take a safety course. There is an additional $2.50 fee, just because. You bought a gun, you need to amortize that cost. The minimum cost in NH is 24.50, ignoring the cost of the gun, ammunition, safety course, for one deer.

[Robb]

136. OK, let's means test gun ownership.

I'm cool with that. Subsistence hunters get a pass.

[Nevernose]

138. I would love to The Fox News reaction

To an Obama-led "Arm the Poor" campaign, as well as the well-heeled squirming in their comfy seats.

[doc03]

139. I think most people understand that some hunt to eat. I have read

a couple OPs here about taxing ammo so nobody could afford it, that is stupid. But nobody needs a AR-15 with a 30 round magazine to hunt with. True some people may hunt groundhogs or coyote with them just because they have one. You don't need more than one shot for groundhog, I have shot hundreds of groundhogs out to 300 yards with one shot.
As far as I know nobody shoots coyote for food and a coyote isn't going to stand there while you shoot 30 rounds at him, you would be damn lucky to get two shots in.

[PavePusher]

253. The following are very popular deer-hunting weapons:

http://www.remington.com/product-families/firearms/centerfire-families/autoloading-model-r-15.aspx

http://www.remington.com/product-families/firearms/centerfire-families/autoloading-model-r-25.aspx

[doc03]

306. So what some idiot would use a 105mm tank if he could get one. Neither of

those guns are legal to hunt deer in Ohio or PA.

[PavePusher]

312. They are not at all equivalent to "a 105mm tank". And they are quite legal in many states.

Did you have a point?

[doc03]

334. I got a point, just because someone hunts with them doesn't

mean you can't hunt deer without one. Nobody said they were equivalent to a tank.
People use them to hunt because they are available. I suppose someone hunts deer with a 458 Magnum, that don't mean you have to have one to hunt deer with. All I can say is if you need a semi-auto or more than 3 rounds to hunt deer you must be one bad shot. No matter what anyone says you come up with some bullshit NRA style argument. I never see you post anywhere but in the gun group.

[PavePusher]

335. I'm not aware of any state that allows hunting of deer, or any non-pest game...

with anything larger than a 5-round magazine.

When I hunt with my AR, I use hunting-legal 5-round magazines. Semi-auto's havebeen used in hunting for over 100 years. People do not, for the most part, simply blaze away wildly with them.

You seem to have some misconceptions about hunting techniques and technologies. I hope this helps clear some of that up.

Where I post most frequently, and on what subjects, is irrelevent. This is a subject worthy of debate, and one I'm fairly well-informed on.

[doc03]

336. Well you just made one of my points you don't need more than 5 rounds

to hunt deer with and it isn't legal in most states. My experience with semi-autos, most people shoot until the gun is empty. That is why the state put in the 3 shot limit. I agree with you, you don't need a 30 round magazine.

[bluestateguy]

145. Ammo is already taxed in most states

It falls under the sales tax, which almost every state has. And that should be enough.

[Eleanors38]

220. Ammo, guns, fishing supplies and motorboat fuel are additionally taxed since the 30s...

To support programs for conservation and acquisition of land, making hunters and fishers some of the strongest supporters of outdoor activities, including for those who never spend a dime on Pittman-Robertson taxes.

[alarimer]

149. All the hunters I know do it for recreation.

They use the meat, to be sure, but they do not "hunt to live".

Wildlife laws are such in most places that taking the legally allowable bag limit is not sufficient to feed a family for an extended period of time. Now that doesn't mean there aren't plenty of poachers out there, there are, but I'd like to see some evidence that your assertion is true.

Wildlife laws exist to manage populations and keep them viable. Violations of these laws make that impossible. I see nothing to be proud of in "living off the land" if doing so damages it in some way for other people to enjoy or utilize.

There is no shame is assistance when you need it and it's high time everyone stop acting like food stamps or whatever make you a bad provider. As a liberal I believe that a primary function of government is to provide for the common welfare and that includes helping people with food or whatever when they need it. Stubborn pride only results in destruction of resources or bad outcomes.

[samsingh]

150. do they need assault rifles

[nadinbrzezinski]

154. This is the hilarious part

Most of the people doing subsistence hunting are using the guns passed down from their fathers, and grand fathers. At times this means a Winchester lever action rifle or a pump shotgun, both original factory models. (That is a hundred year old gun, or older)

Some in the far north, as in Alaska, have upgraded to 30-30 carbines out of national guard surplus.

These are not the people buying $3,000 riffles with the latest scopes and attachments.

Of course there are same who fell on hard times who might have to hunt to eat that own these weapons. From what locally I have seen the word minority applies.

This book will help

http://www.amazon.com/Deer-Hunting-Jesus-Dispatches-Americas/dp/0307339378

It will also explain some attitudes you are probably not familiar with.

[obamanut2012]

184. Who said they did?

The OP isn't about gin control. It's about the rural poor and how guns are part of their lives, and how they are always ignored on this and every other issue.

I think it's easier for some posters to make believe my OP is some kind of anti gun control thing than to see it for what it is.

[samsingh]

284. the NRA now cares for the rural poor?

maybe they should try to get them healthcare

[nadinbrzezinski]

292. The NRA cares little for any body but Colt

Don't be silly. I am all for gun control and strong regulations. I get the OP.

It gets worst, the rural poor are not current clients for Colt. Most of them are using hand me downs, some over 100 years old.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

214. No but some use detachable magazine fed semi automatics in a variety of calibers

[matt819]

157. Oh, for goodness sakes, just stop

Yes, you hunt. You may like it. You may even need to hunt for food. Great. Buy your rifle, or your bow, get a license, and go hunt. No one is stopping you. No one is taking your rifle away from you. I live in a rural area, and while I do not hunt, I realize that others do, and as long as they do not do this on my property, I don't begrudge them. Except for PETA members and some vegans, no one is arguing that you shouldn't hunt. Why do you need to keep pointing this out?

The issue is that you don't need an AR-15 or a Bushmaster or any variation of assault rifle to hunt. Or for target shooting. The only thing you need these weapons for is to hunt and kill people. In war zones. Not killing people? Not in a war zone? Then you don't need an assault rifle.

As for taxing weapons and ammunition, the fact is that everything should be on the table for discussion. As arguments are made for each proposal to exert at least some control on gun proliferation, some arguments are shelved. Maybe your argument against taxing ammo is valid. Maybe not. But, please, stop the "people hunt so don't take my gun away" argument.

[Little Star]

176. Bingo

[nadinbrzezinski]

180. Exactly where did the OP said you need an AR-15

To hunt?

[matt819]

231. I know, I know

Correctly or not, I was reading between the lines. If I'm wrong, I stand corrected.

[nadinbrzezinski]

232. The OP was talking of a real issue

Many on our side ignore, rural poverty. It's usually out of mind, out of sight.

Most of these people use all but new guns.

[matt819]

275. Sure, but what's the point?

Do you want to talk about rural poverty? Great. This issue is vast and goes well beyond hunting for food.

I understood the OP to be an offshoot of the gun control discussion, and my objection was that it's pointless. Yes. People hunt. OK. The OP loathes hunting. I'm not a fan, and since I eat meat I suppose loathing hunting is hypocritical. In either case, so what? No one is suggesting they stop hunting. No one is talking about banning hunting and demanding that all hunters switch to spears and bows. So, as a gun control matter, it's essentially irrelevant.

Again, if the issue is about rural poverty, or poverty generally, then that's a reasonable discussion. In this respect, we are seeing a surge in urban farming issues and even in urban hunting. Good subject for discussion.

Maybe I've missed the point. In any case, I'm going to bed.

[nadinbrzezinski]

277. The point is that this should be taken

Into account in policy discussions.

[obamanut2012]

186. Stop what? Knowing how rural poor live?

Hunting? I'm a vegetarian. I don;t hunt nor fish. I loathe blood sports

Buy an AR-15? Why? I have no desire or need for a rifle.

I said all of this in my OP, so it's obvious you didn;t actually read it.

Maybe address the DUers who refuse to see the reality of the rural poor, whom I have worked with, and the DUers whose comments made me write this OP.

[PavePusher]

256. "Need"? No, but they are well suited to the task and in common usage for it.

And some folks want to ban them.

[JI7]

164. so they would be OK with Renting Them when they go to Hunt ?

and return them when they are done ? i would even favor a program where they don't need to pay for it when they rent them since these are people who are poor and can't afford to buy food.

[obamanut2012]

187. ...

[RedCappedBandit]

177. I don't understand...

how buying dead animals and supporting inhumane slaughterhouses is somehow better than hunting your own food.

[BainsBane]

179. I haven't seen anyone talk about banning hunting

We just don't think they need assault weapons and extended magazines to do it.

[obamanut2012]

189. Totally not true

Which I explained in my OP and in several other posts. That is why I wrote the OP. It has zero to do with gun control, which I am for and always have been for.

[BainsBane]

197. What isn't true?

That I haven't seen people talking about banning hunting or that we don't think assault weapons and extended magazines are necessary for it?

Laws can easily be written that tax more heavily the ammo and guns that are not used to hunt for food. Hunting is not going to be banned. That's a non-starter.

[PavePusher]

258. And what ammo and guns would those be?

Please provide a detailed list.

[BainsBane]

262. Feinstein is dealing with that

All I need is enough human decency to support the legilsation. Spare me your pop quiz, Wayne, jr. You people really need to come up with some new talking points. You're incredibly tedious.

Funny how the conception of knowledge you people have revolves around an intimate familiarity with the machinery of death. Since I have no intention on killing anyone, I require no such knowledge. My conception of education has involved advanced degrees, reading, and research rather than becoming a mass murderer in training.

[PavePusher]

296. So you don't know. Got it. Legislation based on ignorance always serves us well doesn't it?

Oh, Feinstein is an ignorant fool on the subject as well, so you are at least consistant with your fellow travelers. Good luck with that.

[BainsBane]

298. therefore I assume you wouldn't venture an opinion

about tax policy without a PhD in economics. Nor would you dare to have a point of view about whether the US should enter war without having been a four star general or consider formulating an opinion about policy in the Middle East without fluency in Arabic and Hebrew as well as a doctorate in international studies.

Obviously the legislation needs to be informed by gun knowledge. That does not mean I must personally have that knowledge to hold an opinion, no more than you must have the above qualifications to offer opinions on those issues. And I see no reason to believe you are better qualified than Feinstein to participate in that process. But your voice is well looked after. That is the advantage of aligning yourself with a multi-billion dollar corporate industry.

Why is it that you think practicing to kill is the only qualification that counts? Where does humanity enter the equation? One could argue that someone who privileges their own hobby above human life, and especially the lives of children, lacks a conscience sufficient to contribute to a solution.

No, I don't know about assault weapons. I don't spend my time thinking about how to kill people. I could never live with that level of moral depravity in myself. But I still have a vote. And despite your insistence that the pro-gun voice is the only one that matters, I will exercise my democratic rights to their full potential, as will the parents of the slaughtered children of Sandyhook.

[PavePusher]

311. One need not hold an advanced degree in a subject in order to be informed on it.

And you may have any opinion you want to on any subject you wish, no-one will, or can, stop you. But informed ones certainly work better and are less likely to make you look foolish.

Being informed on the subject of firearms does not equate to "spend my time thinking about how to kill people". But thanks for the attempted insinuation. Noted.

[BainsBane]

319. how else do you assume someone can list an array of guns?

Last edited Mon Jan 7, 2013, 04:43 AM - Edit history (1)

If they don't spend a great deal of time thinking about how to use them? No one gets an advanced degree in guns. That is not a subject of education. They are killing machines, not subjects of intellectual inquiry.

One need not be a gun collector to be informed. The issue is public policy and the effect of gun violence on society, not the mechanics of particular guns. Yours is a transparent and clumsy effort to repeat NRA talking points in order to deligitimate anyone who wants gun reform.

It never occurred to me how much time gun proponents spent thinking about and practicing how to kill people before I read the posts by some of the DU gungeon crowd. They have explained to me that the proper use for assault weapons is in massive shootouts in public places with innocent bystanders nearby, as they play cops and robbers. They've been very enlightening and done more to make me understand the danger posed by gun zealots than anything I've seen in the broadcast media. By writing countless posts about refusing to register weapons and using their assault weapons to kill ATF agents and overthrow a democratically elected government, your gun compatriots have shown me just how dangerous they are.

Thankfully, such people are in the minority. The vast majority of Democrats support gun control measures like Feinstein's bill, as do the majority of Republicans and gun owners. The Tea Party remains the only political demographic who opposes gun reform, as made clear in a recent SEIU Daily Kos poll. http://www.dailykos.com/polling/2012/12/18/US/148/DON5k I am hopeful that the right-wing domination of gun issues may finally be coming to an end.

[Eleanors38]

227. The gun-controllers WILL HIJACK this thread, then blame you for it. SOP. nt

[nadinbrzezinski]

192. The rural poor are the wrong target

Rural poor use guns that they got handed down from dad and grand pa. Unless the AR-15 was around oh about 1900 and I missed that...

Oh wait, these are new riffles...

[PavePusher]

257. The following are very popular deer-hunting weapons:

http://www.remington.com/product-families/firearms/centerfire-families/autoloading-model-r-15.aspx

http://www.remington.com/product-families/firearms/centerfire-families/autoloading-model-r-25.aspx

Large-game hunting is generally restricted to magazines of 5-rounds or less.

[bhikkhu]

185. In my rural area, hunting and fishing are the luxuries of the wealthy

Between fuel, ammunition, supplies, tackle, boats, 4-wheelers, etc, the constant joke among the hunters is how much per pound that last deer or elk cost. Usually its in the hundreds, sometimes in the thousands.

In Oregon, you can buy more meat with the cost of hunting and fishing licenses than you are likely to ever bring out of the forest. Some of the native tribes have grandfathered in hunting rights, and they can probably break even pretty well; everyone else is either poaching, lying , or has more money than they know what to do with if they "hunt to live".

on edit - none of that's an anti-gun argument, nor is it an anti-hunting argument. Where I live everyone has guns and probably most people hunt, but the OP's notion would be laughed out of the room here!

[obamanut2012]

194. There are no wealthy people

Nor middle class, nor lower income folks where I'm talking about. There are poor people.

All that hunting costs is the your ammo and some basic gun oil. All fishing costs is lines and hooks, which you can make. Both are very cheap, unless you are sport hunting. Poeple who hunt and fish to actually feed themselves do it on the cheap.

I appreciate you proving my OP. Many people IRL and on DU really don't understand this, and how these people are forced to live. FORCED.

[nadinbrzezinski]

202. And some of my local poor fish on the San Diego river

In spite of the health warnings about those fish.

Or go hunt in the back country for jack rabbits and at times start fires.

We are not talking of the same group at all. Those folks who go hunting....live in the area.

There is poverty in this country many here can't conceive off.

[Lurker Deluxe]

340. Wasn't sure so I looked ...

http://www.dfw.state.or.us/resources/licenses_regs/hunting_trapping.asp

$58 dollars for an instate combo hunting fishing llicense ... pretty much inline with any other place.

I always wonder why people talk about things that they obviously do not participate in like they have a clue about those that do.

Sure there are alot of people who spend alot of money to go kill a deer. There are alot of people who don't.

[bowens43]

191. They dont need hand guns or assult weapns.

[nadinbrzezinski]

198. So is the AR-15 platform from the year 1900 or so?

It's not the rural poor who are buying these guns? As to side arms, usually an old revolver.

There is money for ammo, a new gun, not so much, so better keep taking care of grand pa's hunting shotgun.

It is way baffling.

[Go Vols]

304. I think you are a city dweller

because we dont hunt with ar15s.I think most ar15 owners are idiot city folk.

[nadinbrzezinski]

308. Re-read my post

Since this s exactly what I said.

Your beef is with all these people who believe rural poor can afford an AR-15. One of my locals showed my his hunting gun, can you say Winchester Lever riffle...it was once new. Been a century since that was the case. It does the job well.

[librechik]

200. my BIL hunts with a bow. He pays for the (considerable) expense by teaching others how

and I ate little meat but venison growing up, since the family went hunting once a year during hunting season and used ordinary hunting rifles to bring home an average of six deer. We were all good shots, so I don't imagine we used more than 20 bullets for the whole batch. (more likely 6 to 10) Practice shooting? sure we did a little of that, but a tax on those bullets wouldn't have broken us, even though we weren't rich by any means.

Ouch! taxing twenty bullets would have put us right off that tradition. It might have cost an extra 10 bucks on our bucks (grossly exaggerating here.)

Please. Don't make me laugh. Pay the fucking tax or give up a few thousand rounds.

[stevenleser]

203. Which is why, as anti-gun as I am, I am willing in my desired endstate to allow single shot rifles.

Assuming I could wave a magic wand and make it happen, I am perfectly happy to have an endstate where all guns are outlawed except for single shot rifles that are difficult to reload (meaning, it takes even a skilled person 15-20 seconds at least to reload) and cannot accept any kind of external magazine.

[obamanut2012]

204. Some people get my OP, and some don;t

Some realize this isn't about gun control know I'm not some anti regulation gun nut, and some find it easier to just throw that mud.

I am now making dinner and spending time with my family.

I ask everyone to realize how many people go to bed in this country hungry, and how many people eat protein only because of the hunting and fishing they do. Remember them when discussions on either end of the spectrum start, either on here or IRL.

I have had a single mom, a young woman with no GED and whose job went to Vietnam, come into a GED class and be excited because she was able to find a dead squirrel on the road the night before, and made a stew from it. To have other students talk about killing feral pigs and shooting a deer, and know it would feed them most of the Winter. It is very sobering.

DUers who are for banning all guns, including some in this thread, or RENTING them, or taxing guns and ammo with really high tariffs, need to remember these people.

I'm a vegetarian. I don't hunt or fish.

Have a nice evening. I am not abandoning the thread, I am heading back to life off the intertubes.

[99Forever]

208. So I take it...

... you won't be telling us how "many," "many" is, anytime soon?

It would seem to bolster your view if it were based in some actual, verifiable facts.

[Moses2SandyKoufax]

212. It's a clumsy attempt to oppose any type of gun control

by playing the "hunt to live" card in order to appeal to liberals on this message board.

Handguns play a huge role in the OP's life (an advanced search on this handle will confirm this), instead of admitting her true motives the OP decides to hide behind the rural poor in order to stifle debate on gun control.

[nadinbrzezinski]

213. Whoosh!!!!!!!

[99Forever]

263. Want to clarify who that was aimed at and why Ms. "I'm A Reporter?"

'Cuz if you think what the OP was trying to sell went over my head, you ain't much of a reporter at all.

[nadinbrzezinski]

265. It went over your head

I suspect you live in a city.

Regardless, you really missed it, not surprised by the way. You are the third joker living in the fantasy that we can ban all guns in this country. Short of a civil war...no, not really.

Politics is the art of the possible, not fantasies.

[99Forever]

266. And you are one of those..

... fools that goes into negotiations handing over 3/4 of the turf before they even start.

You are truly clueless.

[nadinbrzezinski]

267. Really?

I feel sorry for you, that's all I can say. One of them urban hipsters that need to grow up.

Someday, perhaps, you will.

[99Forever]

269. Grow up?

I was on contract negotiating committees when you were still wearing diapers, lady.


Get over yourself.

[nadinbrzezinski]

276. Aha, why you do not know the first principle

Of American Government and are sounding like a Tea bagger, my way or the highway.

Goodbye. Enough of this wasting time with children.

[99Forever]

280. So you've still got nothing.

No surprise really, as that is your standard MO. Talk shit, get called on it, digress into petty insults.

Well, as it has been said, "Don't go away mad..."

[Zorra]

254. It's a great thread, Obamanut, and it's real.

Last edited Mon Jan 7, 2013, 01:50 AM - Edit history (1)

Actually killing their own food is so far from the majority of DUers experience that some can't even imagine it, or imagine what it is to be totally off the grid and free of the matrix, and to be self-sufficient. I can't blame them, because it was never even a remote possibility in their environment and experience, but they really do need to remember these people. They need to remember that taking away some folks' hunting rifles would be like taking away city folks' ability to buy ground beef and steak at a market.

You can get about 70-85 lbs of good eating meat (in quality from backstrap on down to burger and sausage grind) off a mature muley buck, (whitetails tend a bit less) depending on the size of the deer, and how good a butcher you are. Figure what 70 lbs of good meat would cost at a grocery store at $3.00 a lb, and that's $210 worth of food. Figure most country folk that hunt might get two or three deer a year (licenses and bag limits usually don't mean much to folks who depend on hunting for their food) 3 deer is $630 worth of meat. Figure some country folks who live primarily off the land grow all or most of their own veggies and root crops, and supplement with some wild caught fish also.

And I do believe that assault weapons and handguns need to be seriously controlled. Too many innocent people are being harmed or killed by deranged people with guns nowadays. But I totally agree with you, it's not right to take away the ability of human beings who live somewhat outside the matrix to get their own food for themselves and their families without being dependent on matrix systems.

I grew up in the country, and I was one of those people you are talking about, when I was much younger. Like you, I'm a vegetarian now, and loathe the idea of killing anything nowadays.

[Warren Stupidity]

260. Please provide credible data quantifying the many people that depend on hunting for survival.

I've asked several people posting similar assertions for the data and so far nobody has come up with any data at all. Since you consider this to be such an important point, surely you have the data so we can understand the scope of this problem.

I'll wait.

[nadinbrzezinski]

261. I already told you

If this was fantasy the Bureau of Land Management would not be issuing subsistence licenses.

I showed them to you. I see you will continue to ignore the data provided since it does not fit your urban centric paradigm

At this point I feel sorry for you. And at this point you remind me of the other joker this morning who wants to abolish all guns since them guns are evil. Reductio ad absordum and lack of understanding is all I can conclude.

You go argue with the Federal Bureau of Land Management. At this point I suspect BLM meant nothing to you.

[Warren Stupidity]

270. No you have provided exactly zero evidence that quantifies the extent of subsistence hunting.

Neither you nor any of the other people making this claim can seem to establish just how widespread subsistence hunting is. I have not denied that there are still subsistence hunters, I just think that the numbers are very, very small as a proportion of the total us population. All of you making this claim that "many people are subsistence hunters" should surely be able to quantify "many", right?

Obviously it seems you can't, and all you have instead are insults.

[nadinbrzezinski]

272. Your handle fits, goodbye.

[Warren Stupidity]

274. Gibberish. Typical.

Ya got nothing and you know it.

[Go Vols]

305. And you yourself

have searched for the same data,what did you come up with?

[Warren Stupidity]

322. Nothing. Which is why I have repeatedly asked the ops of assertions of "many" subsistence

Hunters to quantify the scope of problem. So far......

[Zorra]

315. Here ~ this is from where I grew up

Colvilles worry that wolves will hurt hunting

The Colville Indian Tribes are worried that the state's proposed wolf management plan may hurt subsistence hunting by its members.

The tribes told members of the Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission on Thursday that a plan to restore at least five breeding pairs of wolves in Eastern Washington has the potential to reduce herds of elk, deer and moose on its reservation.

Tribal members harvest up to 1,000 deer, 400 elk and 50 moose each year, and worry a large increase in the number of wolves will increase competition for the animals.

"We have 60 percent unemployment on our reservation," Joe Peone of the Colville Tribes Fish and Wildlife Department told the commission. "To be able to rely on subsistence hunting is critical."

[Warren Stupidity]

323. Again, I do not doubt that there are some subsistence hunters.

I've asked repeatedly for those claiming "many" to quantify that claim. Nobody has.

[Zorra]

329. How many is the "many" that will answer your question? nt

[Warren Stupidity]

330. Hmmm. There is a simple rule.

If you make an assertion of fact, when asked to substantiate that assertion, you should do so.

[countryjake]

216. If I had my way, Elk, Deer, Bear, even Bunnies would have RKBA...

in order to bring a cosmic balance to the "sport" of hunting. I rather like the notion of prey that's packing.

With that preface, as you might figure, I am no hunter, dearly love the wildlife I find outside in the natural world, and have no desire to either kill or eat them, neither from need or personal preference.

However, I, too, have an understanding that what I see as a thing of beauty others might view as meat on the table. Where I live in the Pacific Northwest and also, where I was born and raised in Northwestern Ohio, owning a gun used to go tromp out in the woods in order to stock food is simply a way of life. Nearly everyone I know who hunts (or knew, back home) also pack their own reloads to save on the cost of ammo. It is a frugal and practical method of providing for a family and takes smarts, skill, and a license. I could never consciously begrudge someone who wishes to fill their freezers in such a way.

I agree that some exceptions do need to be made for these folk, in the proposals of extremely high taxes on firearms and the ammo required to use them, but if I thought on that for awhile, I imagine even I could come up with methods to avoid exacting exorbitant punishments on the family hunter. Better gun regulation needs to be designed and enacted in this country, it's long overdue, and I hope that those who are trusted to prepare such laws will keep in mind that there is a difference between those who shoot for "sport" and the ones who shoot because of a practical need.

[Blue_In_AK]

223. This is especially true in a place like Alaska

where so many little Native villages are off the road system and many, many miles from "real" groceries, especially in the winter. Fish and game keep them alive.

[Eleanors38]

233. Wayne Pacelle of the Humane Society of the U.S. (a virulently anti-hunting organization) was asked..

to consider the fate of the Inuit who depend on subsistence hunting (seals, birds, caribou, etc.). His answer: "Why do they continue to live there?"

Such a Beltway humanitarian.

[nadinbrzezinski]

237. Does he live in a large city?

I know, the answer is obvious.

[Eleanors38]

251. Yep, a "Beltway Bandit," as they say in the D.C. area.

What a lot of folks don't realize about this whole OP is that many folks don't "need" to hunt, but they choose to for more economic security. I can buy beef, and cut down somewhere else to make $809/mo. go further. But I don't. Is that a "need?"

[nadinbrzezinski]

255. On the other hand

Some of my back country denizens do hunt wild turkey, or not have any protein.

There are people who do. What is funny is that those back country denizens are not using top of the line AR platforms, but hand me downs. One of my local back country folks showed me the 100 year old Winchester he takes care off so lovingly. It's fine to put turkey, rabbit and other critters on the table, all he needs are bullets and a rifle cleaning kit.

As he put it, when the city slickers show up with them fancy guns, most of the people doing it to put food on table stay away from the field. Them city slickers can be dangerous.

I am one, but since I cover them with a sympathetic eye and am not judgemental, they don't mind me...much.

[Blue_In_AK]

279. No kidding.

We even have city people here who say the villagers should all move into town. It's crazy.

[NutmegYankee]

268. It also serves a needed method of population control for deer.

The population of whitetails in the NE has exploded, so much so that car collisions are on a big upswing. But, the main purpose is still to get lots of meat for the winter. With beef prices these days, it's not bad.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

278. dude, don't bring Bambi into this - it will really cause an uproar. Bambi, omg!!

[NutmegYankee]

283. I'm not bringing Bambi into this

Bambi's Mother on the other hand! With some Cranberry jam and Arugula topping on a kaiser, she tastes awesome.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

286. name the time and I'll bring the wine!

[jpak]

285. What horseshit - people poach for same reason they grow dope and moonshine

Not because they are starving, but as entertainment.

Lamest pro-gun nut argument evah.

Really stupid.

yup

[nadinbrzezinski]

294. Yup, spoken like an urbanite

You either get it, or you don't, at this point. You obviously don't.

[yewberry]

287. Well, let's look at the roundup for this thread.

We should look down our noses at the ignorant city slickers, gun-grabbers, animal-rights advocates, who else?

[Moses2SandyKoufax]

289. Well obviously they're not "real americans".

[treestar]

290. I don't have a problem with hunting

Even if they don't need it to eat.

But that doesn't mean guns should not be registered.

[nadinbrzezinski]

293. The OP s not saying that

In fact 100% background checks and registry should be in the legislation that comes to the WH.

[Warren DeMontague]

295. How about we ban the assault weapons and the high capacity magazines.

I don't think there's any chance that hunting rifles will be taken away from anyone.

[Dems to Win]

299. Roadkill, snares, traps, fishing poles. Guns aren't the only way to get cheap protein.

I know of a guy who uses a baseball bat to kill pigeons for dinner.

Real gun control would allow for single shot rifles and shotguns in rural areas for hunters. And perhaps other guns, kept in secure vaults at hunting clubs.

There was a thread with people listing those they had known who died of gun violence. Many stories of hunting accidents. America has a long history of hunting accidents and suicides and homicides by country boys using their hunting weapons. Let's not have any illusions about hunting with guns -- it is dangerous, then and now.

50 year old man shot and killed by juvenile hunting companion just the other day:

www.roanoke.com/news/roanoke/wb/318550

[Go Vols]

307. Yet

Last edited Mon Jan 7, 2013, 01:20 AM - Edit history (1)

I grew up with 30+ loaded guns and have that many now with no incident of problem.

Seems this shit is still directed at the Conn. killings where a kid that owned no guns killed children.He should have had no access to them.

Edit:I know folks that dig roots and raise worms to make $$$ to keep from being in the system.Plus kill their own food.

[nadinbrzezinski]

309. Hate to point this out

But background checks, 100%, are not crazy.

Nor is a database.

Both have good reasons and include national security reasons.

[Go Vols]

310. I could nearly agree with you,

but I hate people of any kind to be on any more list than now.

I am for more control of guns.

[nadinbrzezinski]

313. Well, that will have to be the way

I really don't see a way out of that one.

We have come this close to the database twice in US history, both after major gun disasters. One in 1929 (Which led to the 1934 laws). The other in 1968, due to all the high profile murders of the 1960s.

[Go Vols]

314. Its good to pick a stance.

[ibegurpard]

318. There will never be laws banning all firearms.

Ever.
The most we will get is banning SOME firearms and having to register others.
Canada does not ban hunting rifles.

[JDPriestly]

320. People in other rural areas also hunt for a part of their food.

But are people in rural areas using weapons that were banned in the assault weapons ban for hunting game? It would seem to me that would literally be "overkill."

[valost62]

324. Outlaw hunting

Hunting should be outlawed. Why kill wildlife when hey can use government assistance. I would wager lots of the people you talk also poach.

[Scootaloo]

326. And I've been one of them

Strangely I did not need massive magazines, not the ability to fire on full auto to achieve the goal of putting food on a plate. Nor did I need a basement arsenal. Nor was I a member of any gun lobby organization.

it seems to me though that perhaps the solution to starving people is not to try to cram bullets down their throats through the long arm of the NRA, but rather to mend that social safety net that has been decaying in th damp basement of American politics for forty years. That is, the answer to the problems you outline is not quailing before the inane arguments of the gun industry, but rather addressing the roots of the problem.

[Remmah2]

332. So where are they firing on "full auto" to hunt?

We're so happy that you can post with us.

[Soundman]

327. Here is what I know

I know if you are "hunting" with an AR 15 you are NOT hunting to stave off starvation.

[nadinbrzezinski]

339. Since these people usually use really old guns

Unless the AR platform is about 100 years old and somebody forgot to tell me.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

333. In what century?

This isn't the Oregon Trail.

You are hard pressed to find a place in this country that isn't within a half hour of some sort of grocery store. If I were to take your position at face value, you mean to say you think the money to buy ammo and guns in the hopes you *might* shoot something for dinner is better spent than using it to buy something that you know will be dinner?

I'm sorry, I'm calling bullshit.

I'm not a hunter; it doesn't appeal to me. But I understand it, like fishing, can be viewed as a sporting/recreational activity and I don't think we need to get rid of it.

However, because it is a sport, and because reality is that very few people actually live off the land in this country and in this day and age, the prey ought to be given a sporting chance. No one needs a high capacity clip off their AR-15 to hunt. Nobody. Stick to your traditional guage shotgun with the buckshot ammo. And if you can't hit your prey within one or two shots, you've lost and the deer has won, and you need to accept that. Or take up golf.

[nadinbrzezinski]

338. In this century

But The Nile is not just a river in Egypt.