HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Let's do this one, too: s...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 10:50 AM

Let's do this one, too: subsistence hunting.

There's this other NRA meme running around, that proponents of gun control measures don't know or care about the poor, some of whom hunt to put food on the table.

I'm cool with subsistence hunting. In fact, I think people who demonstrate this need and live near the appropriate hunting grounds should be provided safety instruction and whatever assistance required to be safe, successful hunters who eat what they shoot.

I have no problem exempting subsistence hunters from gun control legislation; I imagine a means test for a gun permit would be more than fair.

What says DU?
34 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Time expired
Subsistence hunters are part of the problem, and have to go.
2 (6%)
Subsistence hunters are not part of the problem.
32 (94%)
Other / dingbat-related
0 (0%)
Show usernames
Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

115 replies, 6812 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 115 replies Author Time Post
Reply Let's do this one, too: subsistence hunting. (Original post)
Robb Feb 2013 OP
JustAnotherGen Feb 2013 #1
hunter Feb 2013 #2
The Straight Story Feb 2013 #3
longship Feb 2013 #4
X_Digger Feb 2013 #5
Robb Feb 2013 #8
X_Digger Feb 2013 #10
Robb Feb 2013 #13
X_Digger Feb 2013 #22
Robb Feb 2013 #25
moriah Feb 2013 #26
NickB79 Feb 2013 #27
X_Digger Feb 2013 #29
Paladin Feb 2013 #23
Kolesar Feb 2013 #103
thucythucy Feb 2013 #105
backwoodsbob Feb 2013 #85
farminator3000 Feb 2013 #33
X_Digger Feb 2013 #37
Paladin Feb 2013 #40
X_Digger Feb 2013 #41
Paladin Feb 2013 #44
X_Digger Feb 2013 #46
Paladin Feb 2013 #68
farminator3000 Feb 2013 #42
X_Digger Feb 2013 #45
farminator3000 Feb 2013 #47
X_Digger Feb 2013 #48
farminator3000 Feb 2013 #51
X_Digger Feb 2013 #53
farminator3000 Feb 2013 #58
X_Digger Feb 2013 #61
farminator3000 Feb 2013 #65
X_Digger Feb 2013 #72
farminator3000 Feb 2013 #82
X_Digger Feb 2013 #83
snooper2 Feb 2013 #92
farminator3000 Feb 2013 #49
X_Digger Feb 2013 #50
farminator3000 Feb 2013 #52
X_Digger Feb 2013 #54
farminator3000 Feb 2013 #60
X_Digger Feb 2013 #63
farminator3000 Feb 2013 #66
X_Digger Feb 2013 #69
farminator3000 Feb 2013 #71
X_Digger Feb 2013 #73
apocalypsehow Feb 2013 #77
farminator3000 Feb 2013 #87
farminator3000 Feb 2013 #57
X_Digger Feb 2013 #59
farminator3000 Feb 2013 #64
X_Digger Feb 2013 #67
farminator3000 Feb 2013 #70
X_Digger Feb 2013 #75
farminator3000 Feb 2013 #86
X_Digger Feb 2013 #91
farminator3000 Feb 2013 #95
X_Digger Feb 2013 #97
farminator3000 Feb 2013 #98
X_Digger Feb 2013 #99
farminator3000 Feb 2013 #100
X_Digger Feb 2013 #101
farminator3000 Feb 2013 #107
X_Digger Feb 2013 #111
farminator3000 Feb 2013 #113
X_Digger Feb 2013 #115
Ed Suspicious Feb 2013 #108
X_Digger Feb 2013 #112
lumberjack_jeff Feb 2013 #6
gollygee Feb 2013 #9
lumberjack_jeff Feb 2013 #12
Robb Feb 2013 #14
gollygee Feb 2013 #15
lumberjack_jeff Feb 2013 #17
gollygee Feb 2013 #19
X_Digger Feb 2013 #79
cali Feb 2013 #21
Eleanors38 Feb 2013 #106
NickB79 Feb 2013 #16
farminator3000 Feb 2013 #36
NickB79 Feb 2013 #80
farminator3000 Feb 2013 #89
MicaelS Feb 2013 #18
The Straight Story Feb 2013 #20
lumberjack_jeff Feb 2013 #84
NickB79 Feb 2013 #93
JVS Feb 2013 #24
aikoaiko Feb 2013 #7
farminator3000 Feb 2013 #43
aikoaiko Feb 2013 #90
farminator3000 Feb 2013 #94
aikoaiko Feb 2013 #96
NickB79 Feb 2013 #11
Arctic Dave Feb 2013 #28
Mojorabbit Feb 2013 #30
11 Bravo Feb 2013 #31
The Straight Story Feb 2013 #38
jmg257 Feb 2013 #32
Recursion Feb 2013 #55
jmg257 Feb 2013 #62
Marrah_G Feb 2013 #34
guardian Feb 2013 #35
farminator3000 Feb 2013 #39
Walk away Feb 2013 #56
Recursion Feb 2013 #74
Walk away Feb 2013 #102
apocalypsehow Feb 2013 #76
Blue_In_AK Feb 2013 #78
Taverner Feb 2013 #81
slackmaster Feb 2013 #88
Kolesar Feb 2013 #104
tjnite Feb 2013 #109
tjnite Feb 2013 #110
GoneOffShore Feb 2013 #114

Response to Robb (Original post)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 10:56 AM

1. I'm voting no

And I've been fairly vocal on this matter -however - they still need a background check.

And for some it's not even subsistence. Before 'organic' meats - most of my childhood we had wild game and fish whenever we possibly could. Stuff my dad and uncle brought home. It was never for 'sport'. And in the 1980's Venison at Wegmans was an extremely expensive cut of meat when they had it all.

My dad would have . . . my brother WOULD submit to a background check to be able to hold onto his rifles.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Robb (Original post)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 10:57 AM

2. Shooting pigeons, rats, and squirrels in the city is dangerous to bystanders.

It's much safer to trap them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Robb (Original post)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 11:11 AM

3. Not just the poor

My bro-in-law has a safe full of guns and he and his youngest son go hunting quite a bit (and they are not poor).

They eat what they kill and have, at times, donated some of that food to shelters or poor families at their old church (not sure about the new one they go to).

It saves them money.

My old HS friend is a duck hunting guide (geese/duck/fowl in general) and he has a freezer full of food that was not farm/factory raised. He cooks awesome gourmet meals (I don't generally like duck but he cooks it well). He is not dependent on others for much of his food for himself and his family.

He lives in the city but hunts various places (and rents land for his guided hunts all over Ohio and Montana). He bags enough in one hunt to feed his family for weeks (he usually hunts with his kids so bag limit goes up 3-10 per person/day depending on the type of fowl).

Hunting allows people to be more independent.

I don't hunt but like to fish, and I can get enough white bass, crappie, pan fish in general, to feed me for weeks in one trip. $20/yr plus bait (if I am not using lures) can save me a ton of money.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Robb (Original post)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 11:19 AM

4. Subsistence hunting is common in my neck of the woods.

I do not hunt but have had many fine meals at friends' homes around venison or wild turkey. I have no problem with this. Many around here depend on it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Robb (Original post)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 11:24 AM

5. What other rights should one have to demonstrate a 'need' to exercise?

Should women have to demonstrate a 'need' for reproductive care? A 'means test' to demonstrate that they don't have enough money to support another child and therefore qualify for birth control or even a D&C should they become pregnant?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #5)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 11:28 AM

8. Proving you have a uterus should do the trick.

Any more false equivalencies you'd care to insult our intelligence with?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Robb (Reply #8)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 11:33 AM

10. All rights are equal. There is no Department of Needs, no Secretary of Needs.

'Means testing' for rights.. should only those who own their own homes (and therefore pay property taxes) be able to vote?

Some sick shit going round DU these days.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #10)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 11:34 AM

13. Men have no right to abortions.

But please, do go on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Robb (Reply #13)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 11:44 AM

22. Men have the right to make medical decisions for themselves with their health care providers.

If you actually read Roe, you'd understand the right protected in that decision, and how it applies to all people, regardless of gender.

The right to reproductive choices is just one protected expression of the right, and the one most imperiled at the time of the decision.

Just as hunting is a 'traditionally lawful purpose' that is protected by the right to keep and bear arms.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #22)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 11:49 AM

25. Roe was really as much about men as women?

Really?

Tell me more. I'm learning so much today!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Robb (Reply #25)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 11:55 AM

26. Read a book where they put a pregnant uterus in a man.

The man, of course, was a Supreme Court justice trying to overthrow RvW.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Robb (Reply #25)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 11:59 AM

27. Well, there is this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade#Background

The Court additionally added that the primary right being preserved in the Roe decision was that of the physician's right to practice medicine freely absent a compelling state interest – not women's rights in general.


Also, Roe v. Wade was based in large part upon the rulings of Griswold v. Connecticutt: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griswold_v._Connecticut.

This ruling gave both women AND men the right to use contraceptives as they saw fit. The right to privacy established by this ruling was part of the basis for the ruling in Roe v. Wade.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Robb (Reply #25)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 12:05 PM

29. The right protected by Roe is doctors practicing medicine without state interference, absent..

.. compelling interest by the government.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=410&invol=113
The Court's decisions recognizing a right of privacy also acknowledge that some state regulation in areas protected by that right is appropriate. As noted above, a State may properly assert important interests in safeguarding health, in maintaining medical standards, and in protecting potential life. At some point in pregnancy, these respective interests become sufficiently compelling to sustain regulation of the factors that govern the abortion decision.

We, therefore, conclude that the right of personal privacy includes the abortion decision, but that this right is not unqualified and must be considered against important state interests in regulation.


The decision between a woman and her physican to have an abortion is one expression of the 'right of personal privacy' (notice 'includes' in the above statement from the court.)

The 'right of personal privacy' is not limited to reproductive choices, however. In order to justify infringement of that right, the state must demonstrate a compelling interest (among other things- narrowly tailored, etc- see levels of scrutiny.)

If you're really interested, read the excellent book that Linda Greenhouse did on Justice Blackmun: http://www.amazon.com/Becoming-Justice-Blackmun-Blackmuns-Supreme/dp/B000FTWB3A

eta: Added link to Roe text and Blackmun book

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #10)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 11:44 AM

23. Some Constantly-Repeated Gun Militant Talking Points Going Around, As Well. (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #10)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 09:21 PM

103. Nobody is forcing you to participate in our "sick shit"

You can go find somebody to your liking. There's millions of pages on the internet, go looking.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #10)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 09:26 PM

105. I agree.

I don't see hunters as a problem (except for the dumbasses who accidently shoot themselves and others), but I also don't see why they should be exempt from gun control legislation.

Let them be licensed and registered along with everybody else.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Robb (Reply #8)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 04:17 PM

85. why dopeople constantly pull these

9th grade debating tactics here?

It's insanely annoying

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #5)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 12:18 PM

33. how about driving for starters?

duh...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #33)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 12:24 PM

37. Driving (on public roads) is a privilege.

I don't need a driver's license, or insurance, or even be a certain age to drive on private property.

duh indeed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #37)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 12:34 PM

40. That "Driving On Private Property Without A License" Line....

....is what passes for a compelling argument, according to gun militants. Suits me.....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Paladin (Reply #40)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 12:43 PM

41. Aww, Paladin haz a sad.

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1054787.html
Donald S. MILLER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Sally R. REED, California Department of Motor Vehicles

“While the 'right of travel' is a fundamental right, the privilege to operate a motor vehicle can be conditionally granted based upon being licensed and following certain rules,” Lykins said. “If rules are broken or laws are violated, the State reserves the right to restrict or revoke a person’s privilege.”

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #41)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 01:12 PM

44. No, Paladin Has A Happy.


As anyone should, where their political opponents rely on flimsy, unconvincing arguments.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Paladin (Reply #44)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 01:22 PM

46. Care to actually join the conversation rather than lobbing non-sequiturs from the sideline?

Maybe you can answer the question.. what right is predicated on 'need'?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #46)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 02:13 PM

68. With You? No, Not Really. (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #37)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 01:04 PM

42. so is shooting on public AND private land.so all these poor peeps have their own ranches to hunt on?

a .22LR is lethal up to 1.5 miles.

just let anybody hunt ducks with one?

really, if these oppressed masses have enough of their own land to hunt on, then they could just do it for fun.

a cow and 12 chickens and a garden is plenty- how did people survive for THOUSANDS of years without the PRECIOUS GUNZ!?!?!?

you don't need to shoot the eggs out of a chicken- also, you can raise them for eating in about 6-8 weeks, its actually kind of scary how fast they grow..IN FACT, one kind, if you feed it to much, it gets too fat to walk.

so, in conclusion, you seem to be confused about guns, driving, hunting, farming, and government.

and you seem a bit paranoid.

just sayin'...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #42)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 01:18 PM

45. Is there a point to that whaargarble?

What right is predicated on need? We've already established that driving on public roads does not qualify since it isn't a right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #45)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 01:30 PM

47. i'm pointing out that you have NO IDEA what you are talking about

mr. internet lawyer wanna-be!

so you've proved my point, you don't understand what your fingers are typing!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #47)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 01:33 PM

48. *pat* *pat* *pat* Sure you did.

Now, care to answer the question?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #48)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 01:40 PM

51. the answer is ALL OF THEM!!!! duh. blerp. click click.

List of human rights

Not everyone agrees on what the basic human rights are. Here is a list of some of the most recognized ones:

Right to privacy
Right to live, exist
Right to have a family
To own property
Free Speech
Safety from violence
Equality of both males and females; women's rights
Fair trial
To be innocent until proven guilty
To be a citizen of a country
To be recognized as a person
The right to express his or her sexual orientation
To vote
To seek asylum if a country treats you badly
To think freely
To believe and practice the religion a person wants
To peacefully protest (speak against) a government or group
Health care (medical care)
Education
To communicate through a language
Not be forced into marriage
The right to love
The right to work
The right to express oneself

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #51)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 01:42 PM

53. Do you have to demonstrate 'need' to exercise these rights?

Hint: No, you don't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #53)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 01:56 PM

58. the fact that you exist is the demonstration, you dingbat

these are things you 'need' to do to be a human being.

try it sometime!

blerp. furtz. gunzgunzgunz.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #58)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 02:01 PM

61. So you agree.. you don't have to justify exercising a right. Glad we got that out of the way.

Thanks for agreeing with me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #61)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 02:05 PM

65. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO AGREE WITH A NON-THOUGHT!

so, no.

i repeat, you make NO sense.

you don't even know the meanings of words you are typing,

this is what i agree with.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #65)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 02:29 PM

72. Thanks for agreeing that means testing / demonstrating a 'need' to exercise a right is bad.

You could have saved yourself about 20 replies had you read closer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #72)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 04:10 PM

82. thanks for not reading a thing i post and arguing like an 8-year old!

its been real!

pointless!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #82)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 04:12 PM

83. I gave your wharrgarble all the attention it deserved. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #51)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 05:00 PM

92. You forgot "The right to eat a double down from KFC"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #5)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 01:37 PM

49. let's TRY THAT AGAIN!!

you wanna talk about the right to not get shot by a stray bullet?

ever heard of a hunting accident? or license?

property rights?

there's a guy that hunts in my backyard that takes his limit everyday and gives it food banks.

does that register in your brain at all?

do you have a general number of how many of these 'downtrodden' there are that must shoot meat to eat?



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #49)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 01:40 PM

50. Again, what right is predicated on 'need'?

Care to actually answer?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #50)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 01:41 PM

52. which one ISN'T?

care to ask a non-meaningless question?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #52)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 01:44 PM

54. Which right requires that you demonstrate that you actually 'need' it?

Is there a means test to vote? Do you have to explain why you 'need' to practice religion?

Of course, not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #54)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 01:58 PM

60. you also have a problem with food stamps?

Is there a means test to vote?


no, not at all, anyone can vote early, and often!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #60)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 02:04 PM

63. Why would I have a problem with food stamps?!? Connect the dots for me..

Voting is a right. Therefore no means testing is required.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #63)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 02:09 PM

66. because you are narrow-minded?

the gov. helps people vote. (are the lines too long? do you need a ride?)

at least democrats do, so, again, what do you mean?

connect the dots between shooting a hog and voting?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #66)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 02:14 PM

69. Lol, so no logic connecting your statement, it was just pure insult. Gotcha.

By the way, I put over a thousand miles on my wife's SUV in 2008 and then again this past summer and fall, shuttling abuelitas to their early voting locations in three counties.

What's YOUR OFA ID, so that we can check how many hours you logged?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #69)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 02:24 PM

71. no, i'm insulting your non-logical morass of 'statements', not you personally.

unlike your tactic of ignoring everything i type.

what's your damage? can't you stay on topic for 1 post at least?

who's this 'we'? sounds kinda...groupthinky.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #71)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 02:31 PM

73. *snort* I'm the one who's on topic.. despite you trying to drag it off course. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #71)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 02:52 PM

77. You'll find that's about all that poster has - besides the use of "*snort*" as a reply.

But it all comes back to the same thing, time after time: he's got nuttin' but pro-NRA talking points and memes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #77)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 04:26 PM

87. its like an energizer gun bunny!

at least it takes about at much attention as making a pot of coffee.

'there's something happening here, and what it is IS PERFECTLY F'IN CLEAR!!"

to paraphrase Buffalo Springfield...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #5)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 01:51 PM

57. put this into your NRA propaganda translator-box and see what comes out

the 2nd amendment has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with a citizens right to own some sort of gun.

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article is about a famous phrase.

"Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness" is a well-known phrase in the United States Declaration of Independence. The phrase is meant to exemplify the "unalienable rights" with which all human beings are endowed for the protection of which they institute governments.

there's your fucking right to own a gun, the 2nd is actually GUN CONTROL.

hope your shit doesn't blow up.

also, by 'predicate', do you mean "assert and affirm" OR "connote or imply"?

words do have certain meanings, to those who read them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #57)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 01:57 PM

59. involve as a necessary condition of consequence; "solving a problem is predicated on understanding"

Name one right that requires you to demonstrate need before exercising it.

Do you have to explain why you need to write a letter to your congress? Or why you need to picket the White House?

No.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #59)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 02:04 PM

64. i need a new BS detector, you seem to have melted mine!

the timeless words of Mr. Joe Strummer-

Back in the garage with my bullshit detector
Carbon monoxide making sure it's effective
People ringing up making offers for my life
But I just wanna stay in the garage all night

We're a garage band
We come from garageland

Meanwhile things are hotting up in the West End alright
Contracts in the offices, groups in the night
My bummin' slummin' friends have all got new boots
An' someone just asked me if the group would wear suits

I don't wanna hear about what the rich are doing
I don't wanna go to where the rich are going
They think they're so clever, they think they're so right
But the truth is only known by guttersnipes


There's twenty-two singers! But one microphone
Back in the garage
There's five guitar players! But one guitar
Back in the garage
Complaints! Complaints! Wot an old bag
Back in the garage
All night

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #64)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 02:09 PM

67. I'll speak in smaller words..

From the OP:

Robb suggested a means test, and having to justify owning a firearm:

In fact, I think people who demonstrate this need


I imagine a means test for a gun permit


Firearm ownership is a right, protected by the second amendment.

Now, maybe you jumped in without actually reading what the OP said, and therefore went on a wharrgarble extravaganza nonpareil, but somehow I think that's giving you too much credit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #67)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 02:21 PM

70. how about just giving up instead? you look more foolish with every post!

means, as in, do you need help, not 'we are watching you. you are on the master list.'

also OP-
There's this other NRA meme running around, that proponents of gun control measures don't know or care about the poor, some of whom hunt to put food on the table.

now there's a liberal meme that says
'NRA shills don't know or care about the poor, or listen to farmers who know what actually goes on in reality'

thanks, for that!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #70)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 02:43 PM

75. Lol, when you swing and miss, you knock hats off folks with the wind.

We used food stamps off and on all through my childhood, and we hunted for game to eat and sell. My family didn't really get out of borderline poverty until my sister and I were out of college and could send some money back home.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #75)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 04:23 PM

86. did you also have a hunting license? or was that before they were required? you ate fox?

or other non-licensed 'animals'?

i mean really, WHAT IS YOUR POINT!!?!?!?

look at the part below about Utah and contemplate a bunch of yahoos with guns on the 1st day of duck seasom for 5 seconds, plz.

United States

In the United States, Regulation of hunting is primarily performed by the state law; additional regulations are imposed through United States (Federal) environmental law regarding migratory birds (such as ducks and geese) and endangered species.

Like many licenses, a hunting license is considered a privilege granted by the government, rather than a constitutional right under the Second Amendment.

As a general rule, unprotected pest species are not subject to a hunting license. Vermin may be hunted without a license, or may even be the subject of a bounty paid to the hunter. .

***

Sorry but California was not the first nor the oldest state issuing a Hunting Licence.

The State of Utah in 1901 passed the following law in their State legislature.This beat California by 2 years..

"Any bona fide male citizen of the State of Utah over the age of fourteen yers of age and making payment of $1 to any justice of the peace of the county in which he resides, the county commissioner,or a deputy warden, or any other person whom shall be duly authorized shall be entitled from the officer to whom such payment is made, a hunting and fishing license. Said license shall permit such person to pursue,hunt and kill any of the game animals, or those mentioned in this title during the time when it shall be lawful to kill same, in any counties of this state, subject to the limitations as to the number of animals or birds provided, and to catch fish with hook and line according to the provisions of this statute.

All "FEMALE" persons, residents of the state of Utah, may take game animals under the provisions of this title, WITHOUT procuring a license,as provided by this title.


Utah was also the first state to issue a "TAG" that was to be worn on the outside of clothes while hunting.... Whew..

Source(s):
Internet Search
Gunsmith,Gun Shop Owner-Dealer
Firearms Appraiser/Collector/NRA Life Member
35 Years Hunting and Firearms Experience

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #86)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 04:56 PM

91. We ate groundhog and squirrel, deer and turkey in season..

.. and ground deer with cheap beef to make it last the winter. We sold fox, deer, and raccoon hides to a local tanner / taxidermist who worked out of his house. My grandfather had 45 acres of steep mountains in West Virginia, which limited how much flat land there was to farm. By the time I came along, there were no horses, pigs, or cows, as my grandfather really wasn't in shape to manage them. In the summer, we'd drive to a lake and fill up ice chests with fish (blue gill, crappie, bass, an occasional catfish or trout), clean then and freeze them. Around labor day, we'd drive to my uncle's house in Tennessee, since he had large fields, to go dove hunting- not so much subsistence as a chance to pig out cheaply (a rare occurrence in those days).

About the only thing we didn't catch, eat, or skin (that was decent size) was possums.

I didn't get a hunting license until I was 20'ish, as it wasn't required on private property, only when hunting on public lands. I had a fishing license at 16 in order to fish trout stocked streams.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #91)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 07:54 PM

95. what kinda gun did you hunt with? not everyone has 45 acres, for one thing

http://smith-wessonforum.com/lounge/65070-after-55-yrs-planet-noah-discovers-mossberg-22s.html

7 rounds there.

and again, the fact that you exist 'demonstrates' your human rights.

how many people can 'demonstrate' the 'right' to own an ar-15 because there's a hog in the rose garden.

where do you draw the line?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #95)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 08:20 PM

97. Depending on the season and game, anything from a Winchester Model 290 (squirrel, ground hog)..

.. to a model 97 12ga shotgun (dove) or a Remington 740 in 30-06 (deer).

Number of rounds varied by season and game. 15 in the 290, 3 in the '97 (while dove hunting), 10 in the 740.

The fact that you're still stuck on this 'demonstrate' crap is kinda silly. You've already admitted that you don't have to demonstrate need to exercise a right.

I draw the line where it is right now, thanks. Arbitrary limits on magazine size or cosmetic features is stupid.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #97)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 08:43 PM

98. so one holds 4 rounds, one holds 5, and the plinker holds 15? and you say 30 is the limit?

what are you, just adding them all up? that'd be 24, by my count, or 28 by yours.

some people (state of NY) like a 7 round limit.

i'd go with 8, myself.

actually, myself, i'd keep them in my pocket and put them in 1 at a time.

safer, get it?

you seem to be the one making things arbitrary, don't cha now?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #98)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 08:47 PM

99. Right now the limit is infinity. I'm cool with that.

Hunting regulation is not the same as legality to possess. When the '97 came out of the field, the plug came out and it was back to 6+1 (short shells, not the 3" ones.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #99)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 09:09 PM

100. well, there's your problem, right there! why not just make ammo free? like matches?

grab a free box with a bottle of Jack!

woo hoo!

you can't possibly come up with a reason a civilian would need more rounds than a hunter, so don't bother.

are muggers more dangerous than bears, for instance? where's that 'line' you suposedly drew?

NY bear law:
It is unlawful to hunt big game with:

A firearm or bow aided by any artificial light or a laser that projects a beam toward the target.
An autoloading firearm with a capacity of more than 6 shells (one which requires that the trigger be pulled separately for each shot), except an autoloading pistol with a barrel length of less than 8 inches.

KY-
LEGAL BEAR EQUIPMENT

• A modern rifle of .270 caliber or larger, but firearms may NOT be able to hold more than 11 rounds (10 in the magazine and one in the chamber), may NOT be fully automatic (capable of firing more than

one round with one trigger pull), and may NOT be used with full metal jacketed or tracer ammunition.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #100)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 09:15 PM

101. Bears don't shoot back.

Why are you basing your argument about magazine capacity on hunting? Where is hunting mentioned in the second amendment?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #101)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 09:32 PM

107. they also don't give a crap so much when shot, yet 6 to 10 rounds seeems to be reasonable

where are magazines mentioned in the 2nd?

if there are laws to protect animals, shouldn't there be the same for people?

the Sierra Club has a lot more $$ than the Bradys, i'll give you that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #107)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 10:59 PM

111. Magazines are part of arms. (See 'right to keep and bear')

You know who's given much more money than the Sierra Club?

Hunters, via the Pittman-Robertson act- they've generated over two BILLION dollars.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #111)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 11:05 PM

113. nope.James Paris Lee patented a box magazine, which held rounds stacked vertically,in 1879 and 1882

Beginning in the 1880s, the new bolt action rifle began to gain favor with militaries, and these were often equipped with tubular magazines. The Mauser Model 1871, originally a single shot action, added a tubular magazine in its 1884 update, and the Jarmann M1884, adopted the same year, also used one. James Paris Lee patented a box magazine, which held rounds stacked vertically, in 1879 and 1882, which was first adopted by Austria in the form of an 11mm, straight-pull bolt action rifle of Mannlicher design in 1886; along with this rifle came the cartridge clip, which held 5 rounds ready to load into the magazine.

any real hunter with any common sense would tell you an ar-15 is overkill for hunting.

so ak-47s are good too? Uzis? where's that LINE AGAIN?

great! hunters have paid for all of THEIR sensible gun laws, citizens should, and are going to, too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #113)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 11:15 PM

115. An AR-15 in 5.56 is underpowered for most deer, but great for feral hogs. Other AR-* designs, or

other calibers on the same lower, are perfect for deer or elk.







AK's are not as accurate as an AR for hunting, at more than 100 yards. If you were in a brushy / hilly area with short range shots (like above a deer trail on the side of a mountain) it would work fine.

An uzi isn't accurate further than you can throw it, so would make a poor choice for handgun hunting.

But all this is beside the point. Where is hunting mentioned in the second amendment? Why do you think what's appropriate for hunting should have any bearing on possession? As if that's the only valid use for a gun??

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #75)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 09:35 PM

108. Delicious fox, ehh? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ed Suspicious (Reply #108)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 11:05 PM

112. No, those we skinned and sold to a taxidermist / tanner. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Robb (Original post)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 11:24 AM

6. With the price of a hunting license, "subsistence hunters" are generally poachers.

If you're hunting for pure economics, it is very difficult to compete with $2.00/lb hamburger or $0.50/lb beans.

Sport hunters (via license) finance most wildlife conservation projects.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #6)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 11:28 AM

9. Resident firearm deer hunting licence in Michigan is $15

And for that you can get a lot of venison. Now the cost of the gun, that's another story, but maybe it was handed down from the parents' generation or something.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gollygee (Reply #9)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 11:33 AM

12. Thanks. In Washington, it's $67 for the license and $35 for the "discover (parking) pass" n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #12)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 11:35 AM

14. $34 here in CO. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #12)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 11:36 AM

15. Wow

See I'd be opposed to that cost because I'm used to people who do actually hunt to fill a freezer with meat for the year.

Our out-of-state license is really expensive though, like around $140 I think. So I guess people from other states fund our program, though I guess if you can afford to take a trip and stay in a hotel or something to hunt, it's more likely to be for sport than to feed your family.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gollygee (Reply #15)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 11:40 AM

17. It's $434 for an out of state (deer only) hunting license in WA.

Which dovetails into the discussion about how our tax system is so completely hosed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #17)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 11:41 AM

19. That's a lot of money to hunt

I think people in WA just don't like hunting or something.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gollygee (Reply #19)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 03:28 PM

79. Well, that is the *non-resident* license..n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #12)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 11:43 AM

21. $22 in Vermont.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Reply #21)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 09:29 PM

106. $25 in Texas. Figuring in costs, my deer goes for <$2lb. No more store-bought beef!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gollygee (Reply #9)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 11:38 AM

16. If I had little money and needed to hunt for food

I'd buy a cheap $100 .22LR for small game (squirrel, rabbit, groundhogs, etc).

I'd then buy one of these for deer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosin-Nagant

The local Fleet Farm Supply usually carries them for less than $100.

If rifles aren't allowed for hunting in your area, a cheap single-shot shotgun from NEF or Rossi can be had for $100 as well, and would allow you to shoot either slugs for deer, or birdshot for bird hunting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NickB79 (Reply #16)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 12:23 PM

36. now that's a cool gun! whatever happened to sportsmanship?

Feed system 5-round non-detachable magazine, loaded individually or with five-round stripper clips.

isn't the difficulty of hunting part of the fun?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #36)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 03:31 PM

80. My coworker bought a German k98 Mauser two years ago

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karabiner_98k

He bought it for $200, in great shape. I shot it a few times with him at the range last summer. Now THAT is a nice surplus rifle! Compared to the Mosin's, it's far, far more solid and finished. The Germans built really nice, accurate guns; the Russians built a LOT of functional guns.

Too bad the supply has dried up now and used k98's are going for $400

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NickB79 (Reply #80)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 04:36 PM

89. this link has nothing to do with me, but its my gat!

http://smith-wessonforum.com/lounge/65070-after-55-yrs-planet-noah-discovers-mossberg-22s.html

These things could become addictive . . .


i wouldn't say ^^^ that, for instance!

all this gun talk actually does make me want to shred a few beer cans!

edit:
Mossberg 42M-B US Training Rifle
www.rifleman.org.uk/Mossberg_42MB.htm
Informative detail of the United States manufactured Mossberg Training Rifle used by the British in World War Two.

jolly day, old chap!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #6)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 11:40 AM

18. Unless you live in Alaska.

I've seen comments from plenty of Native Americans that they couldn't make it without subsistence hunting. Specifically those living in remote villages where everthing is flow in.

http://www.ktuu.com/gotoak/ktuu-photo-gallery-arctic-food-prices-the-cost-of-living-in-barrow-alaska-20110629,0,6727209.photogallery

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #6)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 11:41 AM

20. Well....here is a simple analysis

The typical Northern fawn, which includes "button bucks," weighs about 55 to 75 pounds field dressed, while a healthy doe fawn weighs 45 to 65 pounds field dressed. Southern fawns weigh less - sometimes less than 30 pounds field dressed.

Yearling bucks, which range from small spikes to basket-racked 10-pointers, typically weigh 105 to 125 pounds.

Northern does weigh 105 to 120 pounds field dressed

http://www.butcher-packer.com/index.php?main_page=document_general_info&products_id=331

Deer permit is $24. In zone C here (the largest) you can take 6 per year.

So roughly 600 lbs for about $25.

Cost of the gun is cheap as it is used year after year and you don't have to worry about factory raised beef (not to mention the environmental impact of transporting them, etc).

Add to this fowl season with bag limits of up to 10/day and you can save a ton of money over buying it and paying the overhead costs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Straight Story (Reply #20)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 04:16 PM

84. I've never known anyone who shot 6 deer in one year. In Wa, you're limited to one. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #84)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 05:07 PM

93. Here in MN, we can bag a few

Usually you can get at least one permit for each type of weapon (long gun, handgun, muzzleloader, and bow).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #6)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 11:48 AM

24. Look at the bag limits of the various animals.

Deer and bear are the premium animals. You're allowed very few. Crows, squirrels, racoons, and woodchucks are more likely. But even then, you're right about the money. It would probably be easier to earn a couple bucks doing something other than hunting and then buying food.

http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt?open=514&objID=576240&mode=2

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Robb (Original post)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 11:27 AM

7. Does than meant they'll be exempt from an AWB?


My cousins like to use AR-10s on the feral hogs that eat their crops and turn them into sausages.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aikoaiko (Reply #7)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 01:12 PM

43. the AWB lets people keep their guns, so

exempt isn't the right word.

protected by, maybe?

if they are farmers and not gardeners, there's protection there too. farmers can shoot animals after their crops out of season.

farmers are also exempt from being drafted!

hasn't anybody thought of (seriously) vasectomies for the hogs?

trap, snip, release?

i hope they have dogs, too...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #43)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 04:55 PM

90. I ask b/c you said "exempting subsistence hunters from gun control legislation"


What legislation did you have in mind when you wrote that?

I don't know about vasectomies for hogs, but I do know that hogs will kill dogs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aikoaiko (Reply #90)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 06:51 PM

94. i'm not the OP, that was Robb, but here ya go-

You just hit one of my hot buttons. Fish and game laws in general and subsistence laws in particular in Alaska are so screwed up I doubt anyone could explain them. I'll take a shot at it though.
http://www.frontierfreedom.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=636

some alaskan living website. ^^^

i think he means, if you need a certain gun for hogs, of course you can have one, you have a right.

but there has to be a way to stop any guy whose wife's rose garden got trampled by hogs from buying one...

i think?

true about the dogs, i've seen pics of HOGZILLA!!

do hogs attack as a PACK?? or solo? scary thought!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #94)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 07:57 PM

96. Sorry, I should have been paying attention to the OP and who was responding.


Hogs generally don't attack unless cornered or they feel exhausted from running. That's when they turn on dogs or people and go hog wild.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Robb (Original post)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 11:33 AM

11. Are you assuming most guns are confiscated in the near future?

Because as far as I know, even the most extreme gun control measures proposed so far would have absolutely no impact on the guns used by most subsistence hunters. True subsistence hunters aren't dropping $5000 on a tricked-out rifle with the latest optics and a few crates of ammo.

Why would we need to discuss issuing subsistence-need permits for old bolt-action rifles and beat-up single-shot shotguns?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Robb (Original post)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 12:03 PM

28. I still think they should be included in any type of legislation.

 

True subsistence hunters are a rare subset of hunters, most hunters I know are doing it for "fun".

In Alaska we have very remote villages were hunting game does provide food for survival but even that is a small portion compared to fish, whale, birds and other marine mammals.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Robb (Original post)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 12:11 PM

30. Our family does not NEED to hunt

but I prefer that what I eat is not factory farm raised. My husband bow hunts mostly but he does use his rifle for turkey. I like that the animal had a free roaming life with no hormones pumped into it's body and that it was dispatched with respect and quickly and humanely. (He is a great shot both with bow and rifle)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Robb (Original post)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 12:13 PM

31. I voted that subsistence hunters are not a problem, but I have a question.

I'm not poor, and can easily afford to feed my family via traditional means (ie: grocery stores). But I also enjoy hunting, and have since childhood. I've never taken a "trophy" in my life, and I won't kill anything that my family isn't going to eat.
So, where do I fall on the spectrum? Do I qualify as a subsistence hunter, or just another gun nut?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 11 Bravo (Reply #31)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 12:27 PM

38. Being independent of others for a food source is a plus

from gardening to fishing to hunting.

Less reliance on corporations I see as a good thing myself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Robb (Original post)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 12:13 PM

32. I say I would rather limit the type of arms then try to distinguish between people*

who have may 'a legitimate need' to certain ones. Much more fair, and probably easier.

*Also includes LE.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmg257 (Reply #32)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 01:45 PM

55. I lean the opposite way. If someone can't be trusted with an AR-15...

... there's no gun I would trust them with. And if there's a gun I would trust them with, I don't see why they should have one model but not another.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #55)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 02:02 PM

62. Hmm...it seems the OP was about one group of people having access to a gun

that another group wouldn't simply because the 2nd group supposedly doesn't need it as much.

WITHOUT knowing anything else about the persons involved.

I agree with 'trust with one trust with another'; but I think the idea of limiting the type of arms in general is better to reduce access to all people...those you might trust, those you are just not so sure about, and those who have yet to involve themselves with that gun but might. Bans equal access in lieu of an arbitrary ban based on need. Seems more fair.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Robb (Original post)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 12:19 PM

34. I don't believe there should be any means testing

Conventional hunting weapons are not the problem.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Robb (Original post)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 12:21 PM

35. A government means test

 

to determine if you are allowed to eat. What could go wrong with that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guardian (Reply #35)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 12:29 PM

39. do you have a problem with food stamps, too?

Means test
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

A means test is a determination of whether an individual or family is eligible for help from the government, based upon whether the individual or family possesses the means to do without that help.


like maybe
'oh you are in so-and-so tax bracket, you get your license and training for free. maybe some ammo, too'

OH MY GOD IS IT SOCIALISM OR FACISM?!?!?!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Robb (Original post)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 01:46 PM

56. Are we talking about single shot rifles for hunters shooting for food?

That seems fine with lots of safety restrictions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Walk away (Reply #56)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 02:35 PM

74. So you want to turn back the clock by 150 years?

*shrug*

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #74)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 09:16 PM

102. Yes. I don't expect to get it but I might as well start from what I want.

Why is it that gun people can't stand to hear how other people feel about their guns? It's like they are just waking up to the fact that their love affair with weapons makes folks without their obsession uncomfortable and even, at times, horrified.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Robb (Original post)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 02:48 PM

76. It's a tiresome NRA meme, at that: *I* own a 20 gauge shotgun, for crying out loud.

No one is talking about taking hunting rifles or shotguns or even reasonable defensive handguns for the home - revolvers, for instance - away from folks who are legally able to own them.

Good poll, highlighting a ridiculous NRA talking point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Robb (Original post)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 03:19 PM

78. I am 100% in favor of subsistence hunting and fishing.

It's how many people in Alaska stay alive.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Robb (Original post)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 03:31 PM

81. You don't need an AR 15 to do subsistience hunting

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Robb (Original post)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 04:28 PM

88. This seems to be a follow-up to the poll asking whether "Grandpa's duck gun" is part of the problem

 

Interesting paradigm shift here, Robb - From the object to the person. I wonder how many others have noticed it.

Grandpa isn't part of the problem, nor are his duck gun or his AR-15.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #88)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 09:22 PM

104. I have a life, so I missed your pathetic drama...eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Robb (Original post)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 09:56 PM

109. Varmint hunting. Thoughts?

 

What about varmint hunting? It, in a way, furthers subsistance hunting- as well as helps eliminate pests around the homes/farms.
Some varmints are hurting the small game population(quail, squirrel, etc)- coyotes, bobcats, etc.
Others are tearing up the land- ferrel hogs/boars, groundhogs, prarie dogs, etc.
They can tear up your land and kill barn cats, chickens, etc

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Robb (Original post)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 09:58 PM

110. Varmint hunting. Thoughts?

 

What about varmint hunting? It, in a way, furthers subsistance hunting- as well as helps eliminate pests around the homes/farms.
Some varmints are hurting the small game population(quail, squirrel, etc)- coyotes, bobcats, etc.
Others are tearing up the land- ferrel hogs/boars, groundhogs, prarie dogs, etc.
They can tear up your land and kill barn cats, chickens, etc

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Robb (Original post)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 11:11 PM

114. Interesting read this thread - even the huge percentage of derp.

Not from you Robb.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread