GUN OWNERS COURTED BY OBAMA

Yet another reason I hope Obama wins. Maybe eventually you'll get some sensible gun restrictions.

Screw that. You mean loss of freedom.

Idjits.

Hunters Against Obama
Doug Giles
Monday, October 06, 2008

You know, I’d love to believe that Obama is cool with guns and hunting, but when the nation’s largest and most radical group that wants to ban hunting thinks he’s peachy, it makes this middle-aged redneck think that maybe Barack is full of B’crap and his “pro gun/hunting” spiel is just another con job spun by the King of Obfuscation. But that’s just me.

This past week Obama added to his rogue gallery of support groups another radical band of anti-American spirit lunatics. No, I’m not talking about an additional endorsement by a new terrorist group or Black Muslim faction, or pro-abortion loon, or another communist cabal, or an extra Castro/Chavez-like dictator but rather the Humane Society (HSUS).

Y’know, opposites might attract in love, according to Paula Abdul (and who are we to question her wisdom?), but that’s not true in elections. Special interest axe-grinders look for sympathetic co-belligerents in their cause, and the Human Society found one in Obama and not in McCain/Palin, chiefly because Sarah puts the bam in Bambi and McCain favors fishing. I can’t live without either.

FYI to all those not in the know: The Humane Society is not a placid gaggle of folks who are just about rescuing flea-bitten puppies and kitties and then cutting their balls off. This society is also rabidly anti-hunting. Yep, if these now official bedfellows of Barack had it their way, hunting"like OJ’s career"would be a thing of the past.

Check out these sentiments from HSUS’s moist-eyed president Wayne Pacelle . . .

“If we could shut down all sport hunting in a moment, we would.” " as quoted by the Associated Press in Impassioned Agitator, December 30, 1991

“Our goal is to get sport hunting in the same category as cock fighting and dog fighting. Our opponents say hunting is a tradition. We say traditions can change.” " Bozeman Daily Chronicle, October 8, 1991

According towww.NRA.org,

“Pacelle knows that he has a proven friend in Obama after his support of Senator Ted Kennedy's legislation that would have banned virtually all rifle ammunition used by America's hunters. If successful, the legislation would have ended the vast majority of all hunting " a fact not lost on HSUS.

In Congress and state legislatures and city councils around the country, HSUS lobbies to defeat every measure that expands hunting opportunities for the country's sportsmen. It says it opposes only the most “barbaric and inhumane” hunting practices. What it doesn't say publicly is that HSUS believes that all sport hunting is ‘”barbaric and inhumane.”

There's never been a hunting ban or restriction that HSUS hasn't actively supported. It routinely lobbies to:

- Prohibit the use of traditional lead bullets and shot for all hunting;

- Prohibit urban and suburban archery deer hunting programs;

- Prohibit bear hunting in a number of states including New Jersey, Colorado and Alaska;

- Replace traditional hunting as a wildlife management tool, with expensive and unproven contraception programs;

- Retain Sunday hunting bans in states like Pennsylvania, Virginia and West Virginia;

- Ban the hunting of doves, the most widely hunted game bird in America; and

- Ensure that emotion, not science, dictates wildlife management practices

In addition to its anti-hunting efforts in the public policy realm, HSUS uses its enormous financial resources to regularly file lawsuits to stop hunting and the scientific wildlife management practices that recognize hunting as an essential tool. A recent example of this came when HSUS filed lawsuits that successfully closed millions of acres of wildlife refuges to hunting. This is despite the fact that Congress has determined that hunting is one of the traditional activities that should specifically be encouraged in refuges.”

I think many Americans have a twisted view of freedom, like the American brand is somehow "true" freedom, when they don't have the freedom to walk the streets at night without fear of guns.

Owning guns = Freedom. Such a deeply ingrained falsehood.

Would you prefere to walk the streets in fear of criminals?

Your fear of guns is completely unfounded and just boggles my mind. Law abiding gun owners don't want to hurt you. Criminals want to hurt you. You are confusing an object with a behaviour. Silly and sad.

I own over 20 guns and not one of them ever hurt anyone (except for maybe a shoulder or two).

Where do you live?

What about the "farmer" in the vast lands who needs his gun to protect their livestock or crop?

What should that person do? How naive you must be.

Thanks for your contribution, Eorl.
Perhaps u 'll let us know your opinion
of how the Jews PROBABLY felt about the German "gun restrictions"
when thay were fighting in the Warsaw Ghetto ?

What 's your best estimate
of how the Armenians probably felt
about their genocide after the Turks disarmed them ?

( Of course, I have no way of knowing which side u favored. )





David

I don't think I am, although it's possible. I live in a Australia, a country with sensible gun laws, not complete prohibition of firearms.

QUOTE:
The percentage of the U.S. population victimized in 2000 by crimes like assault, car theft, burglary, robbery, and sexual incidents is about average for 17 industrialized countries, and lower on many indices than Canada, Australia, or New Zealand.

"The only thing that jumps out is lethal violence," Hemenway says. Violence, pace H. Rap Brown, is not "as American as cherry pie," but American violence does tend to end in death. The reason, plain and simple, is guns.

Source; http://harvardmagazine.com/2004/09/death-by-the-barrel.html

There is no such thing as a "brand" of freedom.
Freedom means that government has no jurisdiction to interfere;
for instance, it has no jurisdiction to make u get to church on time,
so u have freedom insofar as that is concerned.

Government was granted EXISTENCE
on condition that it have no jurisdiction
to interfere with freedom of every citizen to bear whatever personal armament he chose.



As far as I know,
no one is in fear of walking the streets because of fear of guns
(altho many may be afraid to do so because of the crime rate).
The future crime victims need to instill a fear of defensive guns
into predatory criminals.

Helpless crime victims
are very good for predatory criminals, who don 't wish to get hurt on-the-job.






David

Yet.

Quote: "According to the CDC, the rate of firearm deaths among children under age 15 is almost 12 times higher in the United States than in 25 other industrialized countries combined. American children are 16 times more likely to be murdered with a gun, 11 times more likely to commit suicide with a gun, and nine times more likely to die in a firearm accident than children in these other countries"

You guys seem so passionate, almost religious about gun ownership. You seem unaware of how bizarre it seems to the rest of the world.

It's like your view of "freedom" is the definitive one, and it can't be questioned. Here, we have the "freedom" to walk down the street without fear of firearms, and because so few people have them, so few people feel to need to.

Well, the US does have "sensible" gun laws. The only problem is no one enforces them.

We do not need new laws here. We need to have them enforced vigorously.

Your government was, not mine. I think it probably started there, along with your violent civil history, and just spiraled into a personal arms race with the neighbours.

You, of all people, know that freedom is a relative thing. You want me to write a list of the things you don't have the freedom to say, let alone do, in public?

Well, the idea is for future victims of crime to be armed well enuf
for the criminals or animals who prey upon them to be killed in flagrante delictu.


Since the Cambrian Explosion, predatory violence has been the natural order of events;
that includes VICTIMS DEFENDING THEMSELVES.




Hopefully, this results in the death of the CRIMINAL.

I reject the notion as being asinine
that the best way to treat crime is to disarm future victims.

A few years ago, I was enfeebled by the effects of surgery
to the extent that I coud not walk. [That shoud be Wauk; I don 't hear any L in that word.]
If I had been unarmed (gunless)
I can conceive of no way of defending myself from the violence of man or beast.
(Fortunately, no need to defend myself arose.)


Tell us, Eorl:
what gun laws do u have in Austrailia that are sensible enuf
to enable a victim of violent and unexpected predatory crime to fight back,
to defend his life and other property
with the urgency that this emergency requires ?

May I assume that the laws in Austrailia require
all fire extinguishers in civilian possession to be safely stored,
concealed under lock and key ?





David

Those who would attempt to disarm me might as well try to take away my right to free speech as well.

To disarm yourself and expose yourself to criminals and psychopaths is the definition of soullessness.

Eorl says he/she can walk down the street without "fear of guns". What, are guns hiding in the shadows waiting to jump and and shoot you?

Misplaced fear.

It's clear who is afraid here - those who seek to arm themselves to the highest degree. It's a symptom of their fear that they do so.

How is it, that the rest of us keep walking down the street, unmolested, without guns, for years?

I guess we are just braver, is all.

Cycloptichorn

Probably an unnecessary annotation.

No, you just never go off the beaten path, stay in the light, and hope for the best. You are a pussifed city dweller to the extreme. You also probably haven't done enough with your life to piss anyone off.

Agreed,
but I thought it best to obviate allegations of misrepresentation or distortion.





David