PDA

View Full Version : EU passes tighter gun controls WITH SUPPORT OF HUNTERS


DrjonesUSA
11-29-2007, 11:36 PM
That's ok, do whatever you want....."Real hunters will not be seriously affected" (Scroll to the bottom of the article)

For a continent that was the birthplace of western civilization and all that is good in the world, they sure have devolved a LOT.

EDIT TO ADD: Maybe we DO need to ban the use of lead ammo for hunting....it seems that it is damaging the HUNTERS brains.



http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/11/29/europe/EU-GEN-EU-Guns.php


European Parliament backs tighter gun controls

The Associated Press
Thursday, November 29, 2007

BRUSSELS, Belgium: Responding to a school massacre in Finland and other deadly shootings, European Union lawmakers on Thursday overwhelmingly backed tighter gun control rules that make buying and possessing firearms more difficult across the 27-nation bloc.

Under the guidelines, updating rules from 1991, only people over 18 not deemed a threat to public safety can buy and keep guns. People under 18 will only be able to get hold of a gun for hunting or target shooting under the guidance of an adult with a valid license.

EU member states will be required to keep computer files with data on each firearm, such as type, model, caliber, serial number and names and addresses of both the supplier and the buyer, including on guns bought through the Internet. The registers must set up by 2014, and data will have to be kept for at least 20 years.

The name of manufacturer, place and year of fabrication and serial number will have to marked on every firearm. Historical collections of arms will be exempt from the new guidelines.

The measures, which still need to be formally approved by EU governments, are expected to come into force by January, the parliament said. All EU member states will then have two years to adopt them.

The parliamentary vote took place less than a month after an 18-year-old student went on a rampage in a school in southern Finland, killing eight people and himself. Although the legislation has been 18 months in the making, parliamentarians said they saw a pressing need to pass the new rules to prevent such massacres in the future.

"A 100-percent risk-free environment can never be created. But we can try to prevent events such as those in Finland or Germany," said Gisela Kallenbach, a German Green deputy charged with steering the legislation through the EU assembly. Germany has seen five tragic school shootings in the past seven years.

British Labour deputy Arlene McCarthy said the assembly sought a 'fast-track' adoption of the rules following the Finnish killings.

The new rules bring the EU into line with a U.N. protocol on firearms and harmonize the different gun control measures across the bloc.

In Finland, for example, 15-year-olds are allowed hunting rifle permits, and there are 1.6 million registered guns in a population of 5.3 million. In Britain, 17-year-olds may buy a shotgun if they have a gun certificate.

"Guns are not something young people should be getting hold of ... Recent dramatic events have shown just how necessary it is to have better control of the purchase and circulation of arms," said EU Commission Vice President Guenter Verheugen, a German.

"The conditions of use of firearms by persons less than 18 years old will be strictly controlled and the purchase of firearms by minors will be forbidden," he said.

Verheugen estimated there were "millions" of illegally-owned weapons in the EU.

"We have a tough job ahead of us trying to get these guns out of the system," he said.

Germany raised the age for owning recreational firearms from 18 to 21 after the massacre in a school in Erfurt in 2002 when a 19-year-old man killed 13 teachers, two former classmates and a policeman, before committing suicide.

Countries that have more stringent gun controls than the new minimum EU-wide standards will be allowed to keep them.

FACE, a Europe-wide association representing 7 million hunters, welcomed the new rules.

"It's an acceptable compromise. Real hunters will not be seriously affected," the organization said.

McCarthy said public auction Web sites such as eBay have been instructed how to conduct Internet firearms sales.

bwiese
11-30-2007, 12:16 AM
And that's what they're trying here.
...John Kerry and duck hunting, Obama and "right to hunt, etc.

The duck hunters and Thirty Caliber Idiots didn't support the 'AW' folks back when Roberti-Roos slid thru. It came back to bite some of these same folks a decade later when they were busted with their precious M1As with flash hiders - "Oh they ain't bustin' for that."

This is why the NRA is trying to get the gun rights folks to support hunters, and the hunters to be brought into the gunrights fold so we get some unity and recognize that even though one dude's guns aren't the other's cup of tea, the antigunners are going after each one. That's why there was the push to fight the dog tethering bill - while not gun-related directly, it had a great deal of effect on a subset of hunters, and these folks need to be brought into the fold...

Remember, LCAV's model AW law includes pump-action shotguns as AWs. That should get a few 'duck hunters' realizing they're at risk too.

Army
11-30-2007, 12:26 AM
Because an 18-21 year old conscripted soldier cannot be trusted with a full auto weapon.....

(see sarcasm 101, subtitle B, paragraph 4 of your handy internet guide book)

Stanze
11-30-2007, 12:53 AM
*farts noxious gas in the EU/UN's general direction*:43:

adamsreeftank
11-30-2007, 3:03 AM
It doesn't start until 2014 and historical collections of firearms will be exempted. Hmmmm. Think there will be a lot of new gun purchases before 2014?

CavTrooper
11-30-2007, 4:42 AM
The duck hunters and Thirty Caliber Idiots didn't support the 'AW' folks back when Roberti-Roos slid thru.

Those hunters and ".30 cal idiots" ARE the NRA.

Go ahead folks, start with the hunter bashing and watch what little support you have now dissapear.

HUNTERS HUNT MORE WITH "AWs" THEN YOU MALL NINJAS SHOOT AT THE RANGE!

Always gotta have someone to blame for your failings as Californians to retain your 2A rights.

Lets talk about the "Hunters as anti AWs" theory.
Lets see, the States where hunting is a more common and accepted sport or lifestyle, tend to be the States with the LEAST firearms restrictions, for example Kentucky, Georgia, Texas, Arizona....
The States where it is more common to bash hunters, to be anti-hunter and for hunting to not be a as common sport or way of life, tend to have the greater restrictions on firearms, like California, New York, Mass...

You want support? Then support hunters, benchrest shooters, competion shooters, cowboy shooters, and so on.

aileron
11-30-2007, 5:26 AM
*farts noxious gas in the EU/UN's general direction*:43:

You should use a match next time. :22:

Sgt Raven
11-30-2007, 5:46 AM
Those hunters and ".30 cal idiots" ARE the NRA.

Go ahead folks, start with the hunter bashing and watch what little support you have now dissapear.

HUNTERS HUNT MORE WITH "AWs" THEN YOU MALL NINJAS SHOOT AT THE RANGE!

Always gotta have someone to blame for your failings as Californians to retain your 2A rights.

Lets talk about the "Hunters as anti AWs" theory.
Lets see, the States where hunting is a more common and accepted sport or lifestyle, tend to be the States with the LEAST firearms restrictions, for example Kentucky, Georgia, Texas, Arizona....
The States where it is more common to bash hunters, to be anti-hunter and for hunting to not be a as common sport or way of life, tend to have the greater restrictions on firearms, like California, New York, Mass...

You want support? Then support hunters, benchrest shooters, competion shooters, cowboy shooters, and so on.

I'm a CAS shooter and a lot of them would sell us EBR shooters out as long as they have their guns. Notice the 10 round mag limit was changed after they screamed about it affecting some lever action rifles. :eek::rolleyes:

M. Sage
11-30-2007, 6:01 AM
Did this pop out at anybody else?

McCarthy said public auction Web sites such as eBay have been instructed how to conduct Internet firearms sales.

:rolleyes:

Those hunters and ".30 cal idiots" ARE the NRA.

Go ahead folks, start with the hunter bashing and watch what little support you have now dissapear.

HUNTERS HUNT MORE WITH "AWs" THEN YOU MALL NINJAS SHOOT AT THE RANGE!

Always gotta have someone to blame for your failings as Californians to retain your 2A rights.

Lets talk about the "Hunters as anti AWs" theory.
Lets see, the States where hunting is a more common and accepted sport or lifestyle, tend to be the States with the LEAST firearms restrictions, for example Kentucky, Georgia, Texas, Arizona....
The States where it is more common to bash hunters, to be anti-hunter and for hunting to not be a as common sport or way of life, tend to have the greater restrictions on firearms, like California, New York, Mass...

You want support? Then support hunters, benchrest shooters, competion shooters, cowboy shooters, and so on.

It's funny that I'd only ever seen one AR15 (and no AKs or variants) before moving to CA... I knew a lot of hunters in Michigan.

The shoe does fit, in a lot of cases. It's not the hunters who own black rifles we need to watch out for, it's the hunters who don't.

tankerman
11-30-2007, 6:39 AM
"Guns are not something young people should be getting a hold of "

This coming from a German. Laughable

SemiAutoSam
11-30-2007, 6:47 AM
First the UN/EU and then after north America has formed the NAU then it will be us.

Ask residents in those countries if they thought 10 years or so before the EU formed if they thought it would have.

If you have any doubts just wait 10-15 years and watch it all develop.

We forget our rights and freedoms over time and as new generations of Americans come of age.

Think about how those that lived in the 1940's would have received NAFTA.

Your rights and freedoms are lost over time not in an instant.

anothergunnut
11-30-2007, 7:20 AM
The European's only need guns for hunting. They have their masters to protect them.

Glock22Fan
11-30-2007, 8:06 AM
Those hunters and ".30 cal idiots" ARE the NRA.

Go ahead folks, start with the hunter bashing and watch what little support you have now dissapear.

HUNTERS HUNT MORE WITH "AWs" THEN YOU MALL NINJAS SHOOT AT THE RANGE!

Always gotta have someone to blame for your failings as Californians to retain your 2A rights.

Lets talk about the "Hunters as anti AWs" theory.
Lets see, the States where hunting is a more common and accepted sport or lifestyle, tend to be the States with the LEAST firearms restrictions, for example Kentucky, Georgia, Texas, Arizona....
The States where it is more common to bash hunters, to be anti-hunter and for hunting to not be a as common sport or way of life, tend to have the greater restrictions on firearms, like California, New York, Mass...

You want support? Then support hunters, benchrest shooters, competion shooters, cowboy shooters, and so on.

I think that getting this heated is counterproductive. Bill said, in a dispassionate way, what many of us see as incontrovertable. Indeed, despite your allegations, I've seen similar statements in (the NRA journal) American Rifleman."

Does this mean that all hunters think this way, or that hunters are our enemy? Certainly not. But one of our poster's signature block says it all. If I can remember, it started something like "They took away machine guns, but I didn't want one so I didn't stand up. Then they came for assault rifles, but I couldn't afford one, so I didn't stand up. . ."

It behooves all of us, whatever our pet interests and ownership, to support each and every encroachment into the rights of all of us dependent upon the 2nd, whether we have a personal interest in that topic or not.

DrjonesUSA
11-30-2007, 8:21 AM
Remember, LCAV's model AW law includes pump-action shotguns as AWs. That should get a few 'duck hunters' realizing they're at risk too.

Could you post a link to that?

Thanks!!

DrjonesUSA
11-30-2007, 8:27 AM
Those hunters and ".30 cal idiots" ARE the NRA.

Go ahead folks, start with the hunter bashing and watch what little support you have now dissapear.

HUNTERS HUNT MORE WITH "AWs" THEN YOU MALL NINJAS SHOOT AT THE RANGE!

Always gotta have someone to blame for your failings as Californians to retain your 2A rights.

Lets talk about the "Hunters as anti AWs" theory.
Lets see, the States where hunting is a more common and accepted sport or lifestyle, tend to be the States with the LEAST firearms restrictions, for example Kentucky, Georgia, Texas, Arizona....
The States where it is more common to bash hunters, to be anti-hunter and for hunting to not be a as common sport or way of life, tend to have the greater restrictions on firearms, like California, New York, Mass...

You want support? Then support hunters, benchrest shooters, competion shooters, cowboy shooters, and so on.


I did not start this as a hunter-bashing thread, nor do I look down upon ANYONE who uses guns for any legitimate purpose; cowboy, hunting, range, defense, etc.

I posted this as a wake up call for everyone that sometimes the enemy is our fellow gun owner.

I *DO* have a severe problem with hunters who think that "nobody needs an assault rifle" or that "handguns are only for killin'" as they support gun laws so long as their precious deer rifles (scoped sniper rifles) and duck guns (street-sweepers) are safe, when in reality, there is no gun that is safe from a ban.

Hunter
11-30-2007, 8:31 AM
The real reality on hunters in CA is that we are a diminishing breed here. :(

In 1977 there was over 550,000 hunting licenses sold in the state with a population of 22 million residents or about 2.5% of the population. Fast forward to 2007 where there was only 225,000 hunting license issued in CA to a population of over 36 million.....hunters make up only 0.63% of the population now! So the hunters' voice is really declining when you look at the total percentages. A 75% drop in the last 30 yrs.


Edit to add:

Another way to look at it is that all of the "hunters" in CA live in Redding/Redbluff, CA (about the same 225k population) and the rest of CA is made up of non-hunters....who do you think will set the policies on gun ownership? The small town of Redding or the rest of the State?

Sgt Raven
11-30-2007, 8:36 AM
The real reality on hunters in CA is that we are a diminishing breed here. :(

In 1977 there was over 550,000 hunting licenses sold in the state with a population of 22 million residents or about 2.5% of the population. Fast forward to 2007 where there was only 225,000 hunting license issued in CA to a population of over 36 million.....hunters make up only 0.63% of the population now! So the hunters' voice is really declining when you look at the total percentages. A 75% drop in the last 30 yrs.

There was a time I could use a hunting license as my HSC, and even though I could have used my DD214 I'd get a current HL whenever I was going to buy a pistol. I don't have the time or a place to hunt anymore so I don't keep my license current.

CavTrooper
11-30-2007, 8:50 AM
The hunting contingent that sold out CA on the assault weapons ban is called the NRA, yet so many still belive they are the saviors of firearms rights. When something substatial comes from them, I may become a member, until then Ill continue to throw them a few bucks every so often but will not join. I will not become a member of an organization whos leadership is on record as being anti "AWs".

Hunter
11-30-2007, 8:57 AM
..... That's why there was the push to fight the dog tethering bill - while not gun-related directly, it had a great deal of effect on a subset of hunters, and these folks need to be brought into the fold...

Remember, LCAV's model AW law includes pump-action shotguns as AWs. That should get a few 'duck hunters' realizing they're at risk too.

I agree that anyone that handles a gun, needs to be united as one, especially in CA. But as my post on the # of hunters in this state shows, they only account for 0.6% of the population. The percentage of "duck hunters" is way less than that as there is less than 70,000 "duck hunters" active in the state, out of the 225,000 total hunters.

So yes we all need to be on the same page, but I feel the bigger issue is getting the non-hunter/gun owner to wake up a little more. On average there should be over 8 million guns in this state so there should be millions of "gun owners" that own those guns. This is the real goldmine that needs to accessed.

SemiAutoSam
11-30-2007, 9:18 AM
And don't forget their involvement in the 1986 McClure Volkmer FOPA LAW that banned future registration of Machine Guns.

NRA was instrumental in giving that law to the antis. And I doubt that they asked their membership how they felt about it before their lobbyists went to work on it.

I suppose the NRA that Glock22Fan talks about is after they changed their way of thinking and started to look out for the encroachment of our 2nd Amendment rights hmmm ?

The hunting contingent that sold out CA on the assault weapons ban is called the NRA, yet so many still believe they are the saviors of firearms rights. When something substantial comes from them, I may become a member, until then Ill continue to throw them a few bucks every so often but will not join. I will not become a member of an organization whos leadership is on record as being anti "AWs".

bwiese
11-30-2007, 9:27 AM
Those hunters and ".30 cal idiots" ARE the NRA.

Go ahead folks, start with the hunter bashing and watch what little support you have now dissapear.

During the passage of initial Roberti-Roos ban, we got a ton of guys saying, "I don't need that to hunt", or "I dunno why you need those black poodle shooters, my Garand (or M1A) is just fine, they ain't gonna ban that."



HUNTERS HUNT MORE WITH "AWs" THEN YOU MALL NINJAS SHOOT AT THE RANGE!

Maybe the hunters YOU know. But there is unfortunately a disconnect with a hunters that have several 870s and a Winchester model 70 or two (hey, that's a 'sniper rifle'!) and maybe a 1911 or S&W Model 19.

Most of these such guys are (1) not NRA members and (2) not registered to vote. Something about 'not being on a list' - even though they're subscribed to Sports Afield, and sent in a discount coupon with their name, address and phone# for the discount on Federal 12GA goose loads they bought on a VISA card.

Always gotta have someone to blame for your failings as Californians to retain your 2A rights.

The orig CA AW ban passed by 1 vote. If we'd had some more engaged people - "the duck hunters", etc. - who would realize things would eventually affect them and that they were not 'protected species' except at the outset - we wouldn't have had these issues.


You want support? Then support hunters, benchrest shooters, competion shooters, cowboy shooters, and so on.

I support anyone legal with a gun, no matter what their legal endeavor is.

But please don't mention cowboy shooters. Calif. SASS idiots - in combination with CRPA - are the guys who brought us the Roster of approved handguns by causing some fragmentation up in Sacto and perceived lack of unity, so fence-sitter legislators thought they had a 'safe' vote that wouldn't upset the gunnies.

And some fair fraction of hunters in CA sold us out during initial CA AW ban proposal because they touted the Brady line, "I don't need that to hunt."

I've helped people get outta jail/get charges dismissed/reduce their legal bills, and join with my brethren gunnies in the Fight.

What have you done, except fill out your Military AW exemption?



The hunting contingent that sold out CA on the assault weapons ban is called the NRA, yet so many still belive they are the saviors of firearms rights. When something substatial comes from them, I may become a member, until then Ill continue to throw them a few bucks every so often but will not join. I will not become a member of an organization whos leadership is on record as being anti "AWs".

Cav, you are full of pure unmitigated cr*p. I believe you were not even here then, I believe. NRA fought this tooth & nail and SB23. Admittedly, we're in a bit of a rear-guard action given demographics & districting in CA, but we can fight in the courts and things are gradually moving our way in certain aspects.

Please show me one place where NRA supports or supported an AW ban either in CA or nationally. You can't - period. I think you're just too cheap to send in your $30.



And don't forget their involvement in the 1986 McClure Volkmer FOPA LAW that banned future registration of Machine Guns.

NRA was instrumental in giving that law to the antis. And I doubt that they asked their membership how they felt about it before their lobbyists went to work on it.


More Sam black helicopters crap as usual.

FOPA 86 was promoted to protect HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of shooters who crossed state lines in their travels from being harrassed in other non-home states when passing thru. The NFA amendment stuff was thrown in at the last minute before vote, and not by NRA or its friends in congress. It woulda passed that way, or it would not have passed at all: in 1986 we didn't have as much sway in Congress/Senate as we do now.

It's still being tested, many states are not familiar with it, but it lays the groundwork to bring down other laws.

Would you have us NOT have FOPA '86? That way more people can be arrested for felonies and pay $10+K for attorneys fees.

Hunter
11-30-2007, 9:45 AM
...... But there is unfortunately a disconnect with a hunters that have several 870s and a Winchester model 70 or two .....Most of these such guys are (1) not NRA members and (2) not registered to vote. ......

Bill,
I have respect for you and agree with you on some points, but you really seem to be pulling the above statement out of thin air. How could anyone know this type of statistic?? As a member of the NRA and a hunter in this state, I have NEVER been asked by the NRA if 1) I was a hunter or not; 2) If I voted or not. I also have never been asked by any of the hunting groups either. So where does this come from?

bwiese
11-30-2007, 9:50 AM
I posted this as a wake up call for everyone that sometimes the enemy is our fellow gun owner.

I *DO* have a severe problem with hunters who think that "nobody needs an assault rifle" or that "handguns are only for killin'" as they support gun laws so long as their precious deer rifles (scoped sniper rifles) and duck guns (street-sweepers) are safe, when in reality, there is no gun that is safe from a ban.

And that was the problem here in CA in 1989, and many of these folks only started waking up in 1998-99 when SB23 rolled around.

You shoulda seen how some of those M1A guys were panicking.


Quote:

Remember, LCAV's model AW law includes pump-action shotguns as AWs. That should get a few 'duck hunters' realizing they're at risk too.

Could you post a link to that?

All the laws LCAV wants: http://www.lcav.org/library/model_laws.asp

I was wrong:
http://www.lcav.org/library/model_laws/Assault_Weapons.pdf

They wanna treat pump-action *rifles* as AWs. The model law also codifies constructive possession.

But I do indeed recall seeing somewhere else they wanna treat pump shotguns as AWs.

bwiese
11-30-2007, 10:04 AM
Bill,
I have respect for you and agree with you on some points, but you really seem to be pulling the above statement out of thin air. How could anyone know this type of statistic?? As a member of the NRA and a hunter in this state, I have NEVER been asked by the NRA if 1) I was a hunter or not; 2) If I voted or not. I also have never been asked by any of the hunting groups either. So where does this come from?

Mike,

A good get-your-hand-around-this number can be garnered by looking at number of CA gun sales & hunting permits. Those stats are likely obtained by their work with NSSF. Voter registrations are public records so these stats can be run together.

NRA continually harps on getting people out to vote & registered to vote. They never announce their membership in any state for strategic reasons, but I'd bet that ~1/4 active hunters/shooters are NRA members.

[Plus we have GOC in CA actively trying to stop people from joining NRA! Their reps have actually trolled people at NRA sign-up booths at gunshows to join GOC instead. I guess Sam needs his salary.]

I myself have met a ton of folks at the range. Registered to vote? Naah. NRA member? Naah: "they ain't doing anything".

What these guys don't realize is that NRA CA has to work behind the scenes without touting themselves - otherwise that baits the antis. Just think about how AB2728 was played...

Glock22Fan
11-30-2007, 10:17 AM
I myself have met a ton of folks at the range. Registered to vote? Naah. NRA member? Naah: "they ain't doing anything".

You don't need to go to the range to meet these guys, a lot of them post here :(.

Hunter
11-30-2007, 10:20 AM
Mike,

A good get-your-hand-around-this number can be garnered by looking at number of CA gun sales & hunting permits. Those stats are likely obtained by their work with NSSF. ......

But has the NRA/NSSF actually done this type of search? I have never seen anything that reseambles this data and I would really like to see it.

....I myself have met a ton of folks at the range. Registered to vote? Naah. NRA member? Naah.........

Now I do agree with your perception at the range. But just because a guy is shooting a non black rifle, doesn't make him a licensed hunter. As I showed already, the number of hunters in this state is actually quite small percentage wise compared to both the population and the gun owners in CA.

Yes, there are a few hunting groups like CWA that are pushing back more in the legislative arena, but in general our best hopes in this state is to round up more gun owners in general to fight these laws.

Take your pick, 1 million, 2 million, 5 million as the number of gun owners in CA, all are vastly higher than the number of hunters. So while we cannot forget about hunters, to continue to only harp on that group is really not going to amount to much in the end number wise. It is the guy at the range that needs to be recuited and even more the folks that don't even go to the range but still own a gun....that is the real challenge.

bwiese
11-30-2007, 10:29 AM
But has the NRA/NSSF actually done this type of search?

The NRA has a lotta private stats that drive their efforts.

If I were a betting man in Vegas, I'd like to have the NRA guys' little black book on assembly/Senate districts in CA.

When I spoke to 'em last summer, they'd called the Poochigian/Brown race 4+ months before Election Day, pretty damned close to the actual poll results.


Now I do agree with your perception at the range. But just because a guy is shooting a non black rifle, doesn't make him a licensed hunter. As I showed already, the number of hunters in this state is actually quite small percentage wise compared to both the population and the gun owners in CA.


True. But getting more hunters allied and out of the woodwork is a help.


Take your pick, 1 million, 2 million, 5 million as the number of gun owners in CA, all are vastly higher than the number of hunters.

Again, true. However, those include folks with Ruger 10/22 in the garage rafters or a S&W Model 60 in the nightstand. These folks are harder and costlier to reach than the "active gun owners", which'd certainly include hunters.

However, there is no reason NRA could not get 750+K members in CA with continuing drives, if people would just listen.

If NRA nationally had 8-10 million members nationally instead of ~4million, we'd be in the catbird seat. We're doing well nationally but we can't relax.

DrjonesUSA
11-30-2007, 10:49 AM
The hunting contingent that sold out CA on the assault weapons ban is called the NRA, yet so many still belive they are the saviors of firearms rights. When something substatial comes from them, I may become a member, until then Ill continue to throw them a few bucks every so often but will not join. I will not become a member of an organization whos leadership is on record as being anti "AWs".


Can you please provide evidence to back up your assertion that the NRA is anti-assault rifle?

bwiese
11-30-2007, 10:50 AM
Can you please provide evidence to back up your assertion that the NRA is anti-assault rifle?

He can't.

DrjonesUSA
11-30-2007, 11:21 AM
He can't.

I know, but I'd just like to hear him admit it. :)

Crazed_SS
11-30-2007, 12:10 PM
Quick question.. I wasnt really paying attention to gun politics years ago as I was barely out of my teens, but I'm wondering about these ".30 Cal idiots" .. Were the bans that were coming down pretty much a forgone conclusion or was there some actual debate on the issue? Is it possible the .30 Cal Idiots were just trying to salvage some guns from being banned since they knew there was no hope for the "evil" ones? Once again, I wasnt around so I dont know what really happened.. Seems really messed up people would sell each other out like that. Then again, people in general are self-interested so it's understandable.

bulgron
11-30-2007, 12:26 PM
Quick question.. I wasnt really paying attention to gun politics years ago as I was barely out of my teens, but I'm wondering about these ".30 Cal idiots" .. Were the bans that were coming down pretty much a forgone conclusion or was there some actual debate on the issue? Is it possible the .30 Cal Idiots were just trying to salvage some guns from being banned since they knew there was no hope for the "evil" ones? Once again, I wasnt around so I dont know what really happened.. Seems really messed up people would sell each other out like that. Then again, people in general are self-interested so it's understandable.

I find that Californians take the self-interested thing to great extremes, at least where I live. This isn't just about gun owners, but the way gun owners behave here are indicative of the cultural problem.

Other states manage to organize their gun owners into powerful enough political groups that they can get things like shall-issue CCW laws passed. Heck, Minnesota even managed to do it, and they're one of the few states without RKBA protections in their state constitution!

But in California, if it isn't immediately and obviously beneficial to a particular individual, they want nothing to do with it. Of course, I'm speaking mostly about places like the Bay Area. I imagine the LA area is the same way. The rural counties might behave entirely differently, but then you can get a CCW in the rural counties. I think I might be seeing a pattern here ....

Hunter
11-30-2007, 12:29 PM
.... Is it possible the .30 Cal Idiots were just trying to salvage some guns from being banned since they knew there was no hope for the "evil" ones? ....

I think is was more of an issue of not knowing anything about them. In 1989 the internet wasn't really much of a factor in connecting like minded groups together like it does today...basically one had rec.guns and other such "forums". But the use of even those were minimal compared to what we have in today's world. So there was a lot of gun owners that had never even heard of a HK91 or SAR-48, let alone seen one/handled one. So the first time they become aware of an "AW" is when they see them on the 6 o'clock news. Stories like the Purdy Stockton mass shooting using a"AK47" as the media put it. Or worst, after the actual gun ban bill was passed and they see a passing article in the paper!

So if one didn't have an active interests in these type of guns, even though they were a gun owner/hunter/target shooter, most didn't fight back as they fell into the media's trap of these being only good for the military or just didn't take time to understand. Basically this is very similar to Jim Zumbo's mistake with the black rifles. His first response was from a position of ignorance, but when he had taken the time to understand, it was way to late. Same for a lot of gun owners in the late '80/90s and then again in 2000.

pnkssbtz
11-30-2007, 1:02 PM
Those hunters and ".30 cal idiots" ARE the NRA.

Go ahead folks, start with the hunter bashing and watch what little support you have now dissapear.

HUNTERS HUNT MORE WITH "AWs" THEN YOU MALL NINJAS SHOOT AT THE RANGE!

CavTrooper,

I agree with the core of your sentiment; that a wedge between hunters and other firearm enthusiasts is counter productive. United we stand or divided we fall.


That being said you can not deny the fact that "traditional hunters" have proverbially thrown us EBR enthusiasts "under the bus" in order to protect their "traditional" hunting firearms and sport.

This is IRREFUTABLE FACT.


Not all hunters do this. However there is a very large contingent of traditional hunters who did and still do vote only to protect their firearms at the expense of ours.

Again this is irrefutable fact. To deny this is to be incredibly disingenuous.


No one here is bashing "all hunters." Instead we are speaking out against those hunters who are traditionalists AND would gladly remove our firearm rights to preserver theirs.


Case in point: Jim Zumbo. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Zumbo)

I must be living in a vacuum. The guides on our hunt tell me that the use of AR and AK rifles have a rapidly growing following among hunters, especially prairie dog hunters. I had no clue. Only once in my life have I ever seen anyone using one of these firearms.

I call them "assault" rifles, which may upset some people. Excuse me, maybe I'm a traditionalist, but I see no place for these weapons among our hunting fraternity. I'll go so far as to call them "terrorist" rifles. They tell me that some companies are producing assault rifles that are "tackdrivers."

Sorry, folks, in my humble opinion, these things have no place in hunting. We don't need to be lumped into the group of people who terrorize the world with them, which is an obvious concern. I've always been comfortable with the statement that hunters don't use assault rifles. We've always been proud of our "sporting firearms."

This really has me concerned. As hunters, we don't need the image of walking around the woods carrying one of these weapons. To most of the public, an assault rifle is a terrifying thing. Let's divorce ourselves from them. I say game departments should ban them from the praries [sic] and woods. (Emphasis added is mine).


Quod Erat Demonstrandum.

M. Sage
11-30-2007, 5:45 PM
I find that Californians take the self-interested thing to great extremes, at least where I live.

My friend from Texas commented on that when he visited (Bay Area, esp. the peninsula). He calls it "me first!"

Can'thavenuthingood
11-30-2007, 7:01 PM
CavTrooper and SemiAuto Sam,
What should the NRA do to please your ideals?

If you were at the head descision making table at the NRA, what would be your inputs to become an ideal pro gun organization?

I'm not asking in a sarcastic manner, I'm interested in what you think the NRA 'ought to be doing' inplace of what they 'ought not' be doing.

What changes in the NRA could you support?

Regarding the Minnesota example. Outside of the Twin Cities it is pretty much rural but still a relatively regional mindset. By comparison I think California has several regional mindsets, SoCal, NorCal, Bay Area and Central Valley any one of which could be another stand alone state.

I remember rec.guns and to me it was a good resource though not organized. It was all we had, so it was good.

Back in the ealry 80's the only fellow gun contact we had was with local gun types, hunters, single action, .30 cal M1 types and anyone else we saw at the Long's Drug counter buying a gun or ammo. Now we huddle together at our keyboards.
We are fighting laws passed years ago as well as trying to keep back the onslaught of Sacramentos gun banning habits that got entrenched while we weren't collectively watching.

We are somebody now, a team, gotta make it work.

Vick

CavTrooper
11-30-2007, 7:13 PM
Maybe the hunters YOU know. But there is unfortunately a disconnect with a hunters that have several 870s and a Winchester model 70 or two (hey, that's a 'sniper rifle'!) and maybe a 1911 or S&W Model 19..

The AR is a common hunting rifle in states where there is no AW ban, perhaps the reason that you dont see them used here in CA is because they are banned.

What have you done, except fill out your Military AW exemption?.

Well, it may not be much, or mean anything to you, but before I had even entered the state I had (personally and alone) effected change in the written policy of the Redding and Hollister BLM areas. Prior to my phone calls, the written policy of both of those areas were to not allow legal, registered "AWs", contrary to the state agency policy, which was to allow them to be used on any BLM managed land. I made several phone calls and found the right people to talk to and in about a week, the written policy had been changed to what it is today.
Again, it may not mean anything to you, but as a total outsider to the law and politics of CA, that minor victory was significant to me.
BTW, I will never find myself hunting in that portion of the state, so it had no effect on me either way, the districts where I do hunt, were already in line with the state agency.

Cav, you are full of pure unmitigated cr*p. I believe you were not even here then, I believe. NRA fought this tooth & nail and SB23. Admittedly, we're in a bit of a rear-guard action given demographics & districting in CA, but we can fight in the courts and things are gradually moving our way in certain aspects..

I left the state in 2002.
I still remeber walking into Army surplus stores in NorCal that were selling AKs and SKSs by the crateful for dirt cheap prices. My priorities were different then and I was not a shooter, so I could care less, but I was here.


Please show me one place where NRA supports or supported an AW ban either in CA or nationally. You can't - period. I think you're just too cheap to send in your $30..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSGySNLyACE

Cheap?
I pay my dues every day to defend your Constitutional rights, in the amount of "up to and including my life", pizz on 30 bucks.

bwiese
11-30-2007, 7:24 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSGySNLyACE


That's one single board member being stupid with his mouth.

That AIN'T THE "NRA". Care to ask Ted Nugent about their stance?

How about Wayne, Ed and Paul?

BTW, Jackson seems to have had his azz handed to him Zumbo-like.

CavTrooper
11-30-2007, 7:25 PM
CavTrooper,

I agree with the core of your sentiment; that a wedge between hunters and other firearm enthusiasts is counter productive. United we stand or divided we fall.


That being said you can not deny the fact that "traditional hunters" have proverbially thrown us EBR enthusiasts "under the bus" in order to protect their "traditional" hunting firearms and sport.

This is IRREFUTABLE FACT.


Not all hunters do this. However there is a very large contingent of traditional hunters who did and still do vote only to protect their firearms at the expense of ours.

Again this is irrefutable fact. To deny this is to be incredibly disingenuous.


No one here is bashing "all hunters." Instead we are speaking out against those hunters who are traditionalists AND would gladly remove our firearm rights to preserver theirs.


Case in point: Jim Zumbo. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Zumbo)

(Emphasis added is mine)




Quod Erat Demonstrandum.

Zumbo stepped on his d--- with that statement and paid dearly for it. Before the ARF.com crowd was on top of it, the fellas on the hunting boards I frequent were already making phone calls DIRECTLY to his sponsors. No need to rally for boycotts and roundabout protest, these guys are the IN crowd and they made thier points know, and Zumbo felt the wrath. Im not saying that the ARF.com crowd had zero effect, I am only saying the they were echo to what other hunters had already said (quieter, but in the right direction).

CavTrooper
11-30-2007, 7:29 PM
That's one single board member being stupid with his mouth.

That AIN'T THE "NRA". Care to ask Ted Nugent about their stance?

How about Wayne, Ed and Paul?

BTW, Jackson seems to have had his azz handed to him Zumbo-like.

Go back and read my post, the one you quoted, where I said "whos leadership is on record", I did not say the whole of the NRA was on record as being anti-AW.

Questions to you:

What did the NRA do to defend against the original "AW" ban in CA?
What are they doing now to have it repealled?
Did the NRA comprimise away our rights in the original "AW" ban?

Did Jackson have his azz handed to him? Is he still on the board of the NRA? Or was his sorry excuse for an apology the "beating" he took for his remarks? You know the one where he said he was talking about 5 round magazines for fully automatic weapons?

No need to acknowledge the rest of my post.;)

pnkssbtz
11-30-2007, 7:38 PM
Zumbo stepped on his d--- with that statement and paid dearly for it. Before the ARF.com crowd was on top of it, the fellas on the hunting boards I frequent were already making phone calls DIRECTLY to his sponsors. No need to rally for boycotts and roundabout protest, these guys are the IN crowd and they made thier points know, and Zumbo felt the wrath. Im not saying that the ARF.com crowd had zero effect, I am only saying the they were echo to what other hunters had already said (quieter, but in the right direction).You miss my entire point.

MY POINT is that your "group" of hunters is not the group of hunters being referenced in this thread.


Just like there are different "groups" of gun enthusiasts, there are different groups of hunters.

If your group is the kind that hunts with semi-autos and EBRs, most likely they are NOT the "traditionalist" hunter that Jim Zumbo identified himself with when he wrote that piece.


The mere fact that Jim Zumbo, one of the most iconic traditional hunters of the modern firearm community, decreed his derision for the rest of the firearm community in that fashion on such a public forum only underscores that there does in fact exist a group of traditionalist hunters who would jump at the chance to destroy our rights to protect theirs.


The fact is that Jim Zumbo uttered EXACTLY what the traditionalist hunter community feels. Fortunately the traditionalist hunter is by no means the majority now, as Jim Zumbo has later admonished; the vast majority of the sales of parts and after market accessories from his mercantile sponsors resides of those designed for use in conjuction with AR pattern rifles.



The point is not that the AR series rifles are not prominent, or that the AR series rifles are not used in hunting; that is not debated as we all here agree in this.

What is debated and disputed is the understanding that there DO IN FACT EXISTS "traditionalist hunters" that do not like our EBRS, and WILL AND HAVE sold us out to protect their precious lifestyle.

CavTrooper
11-30-2007, 7:52 PM
You miss my entire point.

(snipped)

What is debated and disputed is the understanding that there DO IN FACT EXISTS "traditionalist hunters" that do not like our EBRS, and WILL AND HAVE sold us out to protect their precious lifestyle.

I understand yours and everyone elses point, the counterpoint I am making is that the "traditionalist" hunter contigent was represented by the NRA, the NRA sold out the AW folks, is that even debateable?

bwiese
11-30-2007, 8:04 PM
I understand yours and everyone elses point, the counterpoint I am making is that the "traditionalist" hunter contigent was represented by the NRA, the NRA sold out the AW folks, is that even debateable?

Yes, because you had/have it backwards.

NRA evolved bigtime from a hunting/shooting org into a political org in the 1970s.

They've been trying to stop differentiation of guns for ages - this gun good, this gun bad.

We were sold out by the cowboy shooter types who got their precious single actions protected (via SASS + CRPA) at the cost of a "Roster of Approved Handguns" for everyone else. On AWs, we almost had Roberti-Roos defeated, but for one vote. Governor Deukmejian voted for it because he'd heard it "didn't really affect hunters" -
In their fight against CA AW ban, many of the hunter types - I'd guess most not NRA members - made a variety public accomodation to the antigunners by publicly touting they didn't need certain types of guns, and gave political cover to the gun banners who were able to equate shooting+guns= hunting only.

CalNRA
11-30-2007, 8:08 PM
I understand yours and everyone elses point, the counterpoint I am making is that the "traditionalist" hunter contigent was represented by the NRA, the NRA sold out the AW folks, is that even debateable?

emphasis added

did you ever hear the little row the NRA had with the "hunting-only" group back in the day?

CavTrooper
11-30-2007, 8:15 PM
Seriously fella?
Stupid rednecks?
Politically naive?
As far as I can tell, the places where hunters are most prevelant are the places where firearms rights prevail. Aint no dang ol' assault weapons ban in Kentucky.

dondo
11-30-2007, 8:15 PM
Yes, because you had/have it backwards.

NRA evolved bigtime from a hunting/shooting org into a political org in the 1970s.

They've been trying to stop differentiation of guns for ages - this gun good, this gun bad.

We were sold out by the cowboy shooter types who got their precious single actions protected (via SASS + CRPA) at the cost of a "Roster of Approved Handguns" for everyone else. On AWs, we almost had Roberti-Roos defeated, but for one vote. Governor Deukmejian voted for it because he'd heard it "didn't really affect hunters" - because those stupid rednecks were too friggin politically naive to even speak up, or spoke up negatively.

In their fight against CA AW ban, many of the hunter types - I'd guess most not NRA members - made a variety public accomodation to the antigunners by publicly touting they didn't need certain types of guns, and gave political cover to the gun banners who were able to equate shooting+guns= hunting only.
Besides the obvious, is this the vein that was struck when that Gun Writer ( sorry I forgot his name) said that AR's have no place in the hunting arena and then suffered the wrath of gunowners everywhere? Forgive me, I have a lot of wine in me but this makes the backlash against the guy far more clear. Makes a lot of sense. ( This post contains absolutely 0% sarcasm. I actually think Bill shed some light on something for me)

bwiese
11-30-2007, 8:29 PM
Besides the obvious, is this the vein that was struck when that Gun Writer ( sorry I forgot his name) said that AR's have no place in the hunting arena and then suffered the wrath of gunowners everywhere? Forgive me, I have a lot of wine in me but this makes the backlash against the guy far more clear. Makes a lot of sense. ( This post contains absolutely 0% sarcasm. I actually think Bill shed some light on something for me)

Correctamundo! Zumbo is the perfect summary of the hunter attitudes we had to fight - "terrorist rifles".

CavTrooper
11-30-2007, 8:31 PM
Correctamundo! Zumbo is the perfect summary of the hunter attitudes we had to fight - "terrorist rifles".

So one hunter on record is the total of all hunters, but one NRA board member is not the total of the NRA? A bit of a double standard maybe?

Ignore the fact that Zumbo was taken out by other HUNTERS.

Hunter
11-30-2007, 8:38 PM
You were on a roll there talking about how we need to get some more of these "hunter" types in line with our thinking and then you say this.....

...- because those stupid rednecks were too friggin politically naive to even speak up, or spoke up negatively.....

:20:

Not a good way to win new friends from that group.

shark92651
11-30-2007, 9:04 PM
Correctamundo! Zumbo is the perfect summary of the hunter attitudes we had to fight - "terrorist rifles".

I recently experienced this attitude with my own father - a lifelong hunter. After shooting my newest AR I sent him a picture of it along with a picture of the 2" 5-shot group I managed at 100 yards with crappy reloads. The first line of his response, "Oh my when I first saw that picture I thought you had joined a terrorist group!". Needless to say that spawned an interesting debate and education email thread with my dad. I love him to death, but he just can't seem to understand why I would want a handgun, let alone an AR.

Sleepy1988
11-30-2007, 9:41 PM
I wonder if Arlene and Carolyn McCarthy are related.

dustoff31
11-30-2007, 10:05 PM
I wonder if Arlene and Carolyn McCarthy are related.

Yes, they are identical idiots separated at birth.

bwiese
11-30-2007, 10:08 PM
You were on a roll there talking about how we need to get some more of these "hunter" types in line with our thinking and then you say this.....

Not a good way to win new friends from that group.


It's pretty safe, those folks ain't here.

They're isolated, not part of the gun political community, probably not on the net much, and not reg'd to vote. So that's why they're hard to reach.

Yes, I'm still p*ssed at them.

CavTrooper
11-30-2007, 10:16 PM
It's pretty safe, those folks ain't here.

They're isolated, not part of the gun political community, probably not on the net much, and not reg'd to vote. So that's why they're hard to reach.

Yes, I'm still p*ssed at them.

Either that or they are all too busy over at Knob Creek shooting thier FA machine guns .....
....edited

pnkssbtz
12-01-2007, 11:05 AM
So one hunter on record is the total of all hunters, but one NRA board member is not the total of the NRA? A bit of a double standard maybe?

Ignore the fact that Zumbo was taken out by other HUNTERS.

No. That is a straw man argument.


ONE hunter does not speak for with official authority, nor do they set the policy and agenda for the NRA unless they are one of the board members/president.

Jim Zumbo however was an iconic media figure, aka a Firearm Celebrity. And thus what he says caries more presence.

Hunter
12-01-2007, 5:42 PM
It's pretty safe, those folks ain't here. as in "stupid rednecks were too friggin politically naive to even speak up"

They're isolated, not part of the gun political community, probably not on the net much, and not reg'd to vote. So that's why they're hard to reach.

Yes, I'm still p*ssed at them.

Maybe if we raffled this rifle off to those "redneck" folks as you call them, they will come join the BLK Rifle fight?

http://www.sturmgewehr.com/bhinton/Colt_AR.M16_Rifles/AR15_JohnDeereModel.jpg

spgk380
12-01-2007, 6:07 PM
Because an 18-21 year old conscripted soldier cannot be trusted with a full auto weapon.....

(see sarcasm 101, subtitle B, paragraph 4 of your handy internet guide book)

Yes, but in truth the 18-21 year old soldier is only trusted with full auto weapons, RPGs, tanks, mortars, JDAMs, etc. because they are under the supervision of the entire military chain of command.

CavTrooper
12-02-2007, 8:58 AM
No. That is a straw man argument.

ONE hunter does not speak for with official authority, nor do they set the policy and agenda for the NRA unless they are one of the board members/president.

Jim Zumbo however was an iconic media figure, aka a Firearm Celebrity. And thus what he says caries more presence.

Zumbo was hardly "iconic". Im sure that most folks outside of the hunting world, heck, even inside the hunting world, had even heard of him until his flap. A hunting celebrity, inside the hunting world, maybe, but not a firearm celebrity anywhere.

However, an NRA board member IS a firearm celebrity, and an NRA board member going on record as being anti-"AWs" carries FAR MORE weight then some hunter with a TV show.

Calling "straw-man" is pretty damn silly, Id almost equate it to Godwins Law. Shoot, we could call it CalGuns Law!

CalsGun Law: (def) When a poster has no other argument but continues to insists thier point of view is vaild, the attempt to invalidate another persons argument by calling "Straw-man"!

Maybe, instead of calling "straw-man", from now on people could just stick thier fingers in thier ears, stomp on the ground and shout "NAH-NAH-NAH-NAH"! It would be much more intellectually honest.

bwiese
12-02-2007, 9:03 AM
Cav,

Whatever a board member says - stupidly or intentionally - it's diluted by, what, 20? 25? other board members. Official policy of any organization is not set by one elected board member.

I also really really, really doubt J. Jackson will open his mouth up much in the future, and this may well effect he re-election to the board. :)

Bottom line:
1) the NRA pushed to not get the Fed AWB renewed
2) the NRA is spending $$$$ in CA and other states fighting AW-related legal matters
3) the NRA repeatedly has refused to play "let's-categorize-this", wanting to treat all guns equally.

CavTrooper
12-02-2007, 9:31 AM
Cav,
(snipped)
Bottom line:
(snipped again)
.

Im sorry, the bottom line is actually this:

Trying to seperate HUNTERS from the NRA, and blame one for the failings of Californians to retain thier 2A rights is entirelly disingenuous. Hunters are not the enemy, SASS shooters are not the enemy, benchrest shooters- not the enemy.
Calling hunters "ignorant rednecks" and other things, brings nothing to your argument, it only serves to drive those who might support you, away from your cause.
Personally attacking me and attempting to call me out on things I may or may not have seen or done, is not going to win me over to "your side".
Ignoring the facts that are presented to counter said attack or call out, and not apologizing for the mistake, will not win friends.

I can give two sh--- about who you are, what you have done, where you come from, etc. When a man personally insults another man, he apoligizes or he doesnt, when he doesnt, yall aint gonna be friends, period.

At this point, Im aware of your perception of us hunters, and Im insulted by it. You (personally) will receive zero support from me for anything, maybe you are familiar with the "if I saw you on fire" saying?? Yeah, it applies here.

Thank you.

bwiese
12-02-2007, 10:03 AM
At this point, Im aware of your perception of us hunters, and Im insulted by it.

Cav, you failed to read in detail, context is everything.

I was specifcally excoriating CA hunters that didn't vote or join NRA, and/or that voiced stupid opinions, "I don't need an AW to hunt".

The hunters here on Calguns and AR15.COM etc are not the problem, it's the zillions of Field & Stream types that don't understand they're under subsequent attack for their Rem 700 "sniper rifles": they play into the hands of the antigunners by their noninvolvement, and/or giving aid & comfort to the enemy by making such idiotic pronouncements. These are the guys that are reinforcing the Obama concept, "RKBA = right to hunt". There are large fractions of this demographic that are, in fact, against handgun or AW ownership!

Two key examples of these types are Irwin Nowick, who's a key CA Democrat legislative aide responsible for writing much of CA's psychotic gun laws - yet he belongs to the Nat'l Wild Turkey Federation and shoots a single action wheelgun occasionally; and Stan Voyles, a senior Asst DA in Santa Clara County who's rabid about trivial technical gun stuff even though he's a big-time duck hunter.

This is replicated throughout the hunter ranks. Understand that not all hunters are pro-gun - either they can't see the threats beyond their hobby, or they're happy where they are with their 870 and Model 700, and only complain when something affects them. [This is reflected, on a national basis, by the John Kerry & Bill Clinton "let's go hunting to reach the hunters" mindset - which has worked to some extent.]

This was accompanied by some fair fraction of CA Garand/M1A shooters in 1989 that derided the black rifle crowd because they thought they would be 'protected' and didn't raise their voice. Some of these guys got their arses bitten later when SB23 came around and they were popped for flash hider-based AW violations ("M1A guy").

And yes, Cav, California SASS (plus CRPA) did indeed directly bring about the safe handgun laws in CA by separating themselves from NRA. They got bought off with an exemption for their precious single actions (which I too love!), while helping lay the groundwork for future 'enhancments' of the Rostering process - LCIs and mag discos for SB489, and AB1471 microstamping, and who knows what in the future.

The CA hunters that are not NRA members or tied in with the gunrights movement need to realize they are under threat too, and that some fair fraction of them have been either complicit thru nonparticipation, or actively working against gunrights by opening their mouths at the wrong time with the wrong words. (Some of them are even enemies as they voice Jonh Kerry "sensible" antihandgun/anti-AW sentiments.) I'm hoping this subset of hunters can mend their ways and come into the fold, where we all fight for each others' rights.

Glock22Fan
12-02-2007, 10:19 AM
At this point, Im aware of your perception of us hunters, and Im insulted by it.

Cav, you failed to read in detail, context is everything.

I'm a hunter, and I'm +1 with Bill.

pnkssbtz
12-02-2007, 10:47 AM
Calling "straw-man" is pretty damn silly, Id almost equate it to Godwins Law. Shoot, we could call it CalGuns Law!

A straw man is when someone misrepresents, or focuses on one aspect of an argument, attempts to disprove/discredit it. And by disproving/discrediting that one aspect/misrepresentation claims to have negated the entirety of the argument.

As you have done.


The reason why I called straw man, is because I do not have to explain further or disprove it since the mere fact that such an argument is built around a straw man is an informal fallacy; which means your argument is false and without merit.


You can get upset, butt hurt, whatever, it does not change the fact that. So acting puerile and mocking people does not help your position or image.

Obviously you take exception to the description and labels applied to "traditionalist" hunters and instead of looking at the context of what Bill is saying, are arguing pedanticly and ignoring everything that is well said that would weaken your argument. In effect cherry picking facts to support what you believe.

Hunter
12-02-2007, 3:00 PM
......
The CA GUN OWNERS that are not NRA members or tied in with the gunrights movement need to realize they are under threat too, and that some fair fraction of them have been either complicit thru nonparticipation, or actively working against gunrights by opening their mouths at the wrong time with the wrong words. (Some of them are even enemies as they voice Jonh Kerry "sensible" antihandgun/anti-AW sentiments.) I'm hoping this subset of GUN OWNERS can mend their ways and come into the fold, where we all fight for each others' rights.

Since hunters in CA are such a small number of the total gun owners in this state, I "adjusted" your quote above to more reflect the true issue we have in this state. "CA Duck Hunters" <70k vs. "CA Gun Owners" at 3-5 MILLION!

guns_and_labs
12-05-2007, 1:52 PM
Since hunters in CA are such a small number of the total gun owners in this state, I "adjusted" your quote above to more reflect the true issue we have in this state. "CA Duck Hunters" <70k vs. "CA Gun Owners" at 3-5 MILLION!

Heck, other than the guys that always win the X7 lottery ahead of me, I thought I was the only hunter left in CA. [And yes, I'm a life member of the NRA, and did what I could during the AW/hi-cap campaigns -- and then bought as much as I could after we lost but before it was enacted. I just bought the wrong stuff.]

As far as bwiese's comments go ... hunters, rednecks, SASS shooters and a whole bunch of other voting blocks were naive and short-sighted. I say that as a member of several of those groups.

Creeping Incrementalism
12-05-2007, 7:06 PM
The hunting contingent that sold out CA on the assault weapons ban is called the NRA, yet so many still belive they are the saviors of firearms rights. When something substatial comes from them, I may become a member, until then Ill continue to throw them a few bucks every so often but will not join. I will not become a member of an organization whos leadership is on record as being anti "AWs".

The current leadership of the NRA is anti-AW? You must be phrasing your statement poorly.

I only have vague knowledge of the politics behind Roberti-Roos, but it sounds that if what you say is true, then you are assigning the actions of a minority of NRA members to that of the majority and leadership.