Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

only weapons used for sporting purposes....

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Guns Donate to DU
 
bossy22 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-02-09 12:10 PM
Original message
only weapons used for sporting purposes....
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/02/opinion/l02guns.html?...

"no serious gun control proponent should reject the principle that most gun owners are entitled to keep hunting and sporting weapons, the use ofwhich traces to colonial times."

here we go again with the sporting purpose...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-02-09 12:17 PM
Response to Original message
1. Can the editors of the NYT not recognize an obvious No True Scotsman fallacy?
...Just as no serious sportsman will have difficulty agreeing that assault weapons and .50-caliber sniper rifles need not find their way into civilian hands...

The structure of that statement alone flags it as poisoning the well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
krispos42 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 12:12 AM
Response to Reply #1
12. I'd be interested to see when the "OMG!! Ban the .50s" movement started
I'll bet it was after 9/11 when we were collectively freaking out about terrorism.


In other words, it's an artificial "moral panic" movement.




Yanno, just speaking personally, there are only 2 semi-automatic centerfire rifles I want: an M1 Garand for pride of ownership and an M1 Carbine for home defense. For anything else I'd want to be using a centerfire rifle for, I'd probably be using a bolt-action gun.

Of course, my particular situation makes the best home-defense gun for me a handguns, not a rifle, but just speaking in general terms.


And if, God forbid, I'm ever in a dangerous violent situation, you can bet that I'll want to be holding in my hands a gun that the Brady Campaign defines as an "assault weapon".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtheistCrusader Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 12:36 AM
Response to Reply #12
13. I want a .50
I'd be happy with a bolt-action though. Shouldn't really matter. Not like you can get off two shots without everyone within a mile and a half knowing exactly where you are.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
krispos42 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 12:52 AM
Response to Reply #13
14. Meh, I have no desire to have one
It's like getting a 60" high-def TV set... no matter the refresh rate or response time, it simply doesn't make the TV content any better.


I'm never going to be able to hit a dinner plate at 1200 yards, so... :shrug:


Give me a pair of single-action revolvers and a lever-action rifle in .44-40 instead and I'll take up Cowboy Action Shooting, for the money... :-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TXRAT2 Donating Member (103 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 01:11 AM
Response to Reply #14
15. Give me a pair of single-action revolvers
Now your talking my language, I do have a passion for old colts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
krispos42 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 01:15 AM
Response to Reply #15
16. I went to a CAS practice meet last summer, just out of curiosity
It looked pretty fun. One of the guys there let me try out his guns. He was shooting Ruger Vaqueros and a Marlin lever-action, all in .38 Special.

I did pretty well with the rifle... I got to try out the "blast the moving plate as fast as you can" exercise and the "shoot the 5 plates on the starfish" drill.


And if I actually had any surplus money I'd probaby join up... it was fun! :-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TXRAT2 Donating Member (103 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 01:33 AM
Response to Reply #16
17. CAS
Several of my friends shoot in CAS events; they've about got me convinced I need to try it. I've got a couple of second generation shooters and a Taurus Thunderbolt all in 45 Long Colt that would work just fine.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bossy22 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 04:20 PM
Response to Reply #12
19. it started when the
ban semi-automatics movement started to die down...basically around 2002-2003

the gun control movement has always been about "incrementalism" (like most movements)....50 BMG weapons looked like the easy place to start chipping at
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
krispos42 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 04:36 PM
Response to Reply #19
21. Piggybacked onto the post-9/11 paranoid and fear.
Gee, that's a fucking shocker, isn't it?

Can't take pictures of a bridge anymore. You might be a terrorist. Can't take pictures of a tall building anymore. You might be a terrorist. Can't access infrastructure maintenance reports. You might be a terrorist.


Blah blah blah fearmongering bullshit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SteveM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-02-09 12:27 PM
Response to Original message
2. "hunting & sporting" in "colonial times," but not self-defense?
As long as the NYT is using the precedents of "hunting and sporting," why do they forget the precedent of self-defense and use of militia, esp. versus the French and the Native Americans? Another example of the Christian salad bar.

It should be noted that the idea of regulated "sport" hunting in this country arose well after the Civil War, not in colonial times. I guess the Times forgot all about T. Roosevelt, John Muir and others.

The Times is every bit caught up in the gun culture war as some shrill War-on-Drugs prohi.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Chulanowa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-02-09 12:52 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. While we're talking about forgetting things...
It might bear noting that the militias of the US were never once used defensively against the Indians. They were used to protect settlers illegally occupying treatied Indian land, but forgive me if I don't exactly count "giving thieves armed backup" as being defensive. They were also used quite extensively to simply clear said Indians away.

Other uses of militia has been similar attacks against Mexicans (ala Kit Carson) and Chinese (see miners in the west), armed breakups of democratic demonstrations on both coasts, and of course the very famous use of militia to gun down miners on strike in Colorado and West Virginia alike. ANd let's not forget the modern militia movement, who's main purpose is to take arms against whoever it defines as "liberal". Let's also not forget the modern "official" militias of the police and national guard, the primary purposes of which have become the protection of the wealthy elite and the suppression of domestic protest.

Also when speaking of self-defense, you might want to draw a line between actual self-defense, and legal murder. I know it's a hard line for a lot of people to find, but it's there, for real and for true.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
old mark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-02-09 12:48 PM
Response to Original message
3. The Times has its head up its ass, as does NY State in general
on this subject.
mark
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Iktomiwicasa Donating Member (942 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-02-09 07:13 PM
Response to Original message
5. Late 18th
century Americans were armed with state of the art military weapons.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jeepnstein Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-02-09 07:38 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. True.
They had the best arms available for the day. The Kentucky rifle was a uniquely American thing. Just because they were often elegant in appearance some folks tend to ignore just how lethal they were, and still are.




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Iktomiwicasa Donating Member (942 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-02-09 11:08 PM
Response to Reply #6
10.  I have several front stuffers
and they are my favorite guns to hunt with.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Iktomiwicasa Donating Member (942 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-02-09 11:11 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. I'll also add
that I have an 1860 Colt Army revolver ( cap and ball) and it is a very fine and supremely accurate revolver. If it was the only handgun I had for self defense, I wouldn't feel undergunned :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-02-09 09:46 PM
Response to Original message
7. Is competitive and recreational target shooting a "sporting purpose"?
Why, then, does the Times want to outlaw the most popular target rifles in the United States?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dairydog91 Donating Member (520 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-02-09 10:56 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. Not when the rifles involved are vewwy scawwy...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tim01 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-02-09 10:59 PM
Response to Original message
9. Ban hunting and sport shooting. Not protected anyway.
Gun ownership is protected by the second amendment. Keep the guns, get rid of hunting and sport shooting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ManiacJoe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 04:15 PM
Response to Reply #9
18. Did you forget the sarcasm tags?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tim01 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 04:27 PM
Response to Reply #18
20. Yep.Of course,the 2nd amendment doesn't protect hunting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pullo Donating Member (367 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 05:17 PM
Response to Reply #20
22. AR's and hanguns enjoy more 2A protection than "hunting" rifles and "hunting" shotguns
The 2A is NOT ABOUT HUNTING!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Sep 30th 2014, 07:41 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Guns Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC