doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com Zumbo's comments

Whether there is a "need" for military-type semiauto weapons in the hands of civilians is beside the point. There is no "need" for hunting, period, in modern society--but the 2nd amendment is not about hunting. Anti-gun politicians, pandering for your vote, will tell you that they're not out to take away "hunters' guns"--that is, unless said hunter happens to hunt with something that bears some resemblance to a weapon carried either by the US or foreign militaries. And many of those same pols ignore the fact that people hunt with handguns--and for the most part, the same people that are anti-"assault rifle" are also anti-handgun.

Divide and conquer is the strategy of the anti-gun crowd. And unfortunately, Zumbo's rash statement was quickly picked up and used by the anti-gun crowd, providing ready proof of just how harmful such views can be, to gun owners in general.

Hunters are a relatively small minority in this country--something in the neighborhood of 5-7% or so of the population. Gun owners are also a minority, but a much larger minority. In fact, I think (from past discussions) that we have quite a few non-hunting gun owners that frequent this site--even though the guns they own aren't mostly of the type to which Zumbo referred.

I stand with all law-abiding owners of legal firearms. And that's where we'd better ALL stand, if we don't want our minority to grow even smaller.

"The general public should have never been allowed to own an assault type Military Weapon."

Those scawwry .30 carbines need to be rounded up.

We need to police ourselves before we are policed.

Well, Jack, while that line of thought holds up well in theory, I know one B2 pilot that has told me and the fencepost that the day he gets an order to loose a JDAM on civilians on US soil is the day the Air Force finds a nice bomber swimming in the gulf of Mexico. Maybe he figures he can get a job parking cars in Belize, or that he might look to join the targeted. While it is plausable that he is the exception, and not the rule, I kinda' doubt it. NATO troops might be a different story-who knows?

If and when the levee breaks, so to speak, put me in the catagory of well armed, if you don't mind. Actually, even if you do mind. I'll take my chances there, thank you.

Anyway, someone out there has written the book describing people in one of three catagories-wolves, sheep, and sheepdogs. It is a work on self defense, of course, and I haven't had time to read the whole thing, but I'm 'gonna, real soon.

Because, looking at the posts on this board, the guy is absolutely, dead on, correct. You can figure out which ones are which in just a sentence of internet blather.

As to Zumbro, a boss several workplaces ago summed it up quite nicely. One "Aw, Rats!" can undo a surprising quantity of well deserved "atta boys'!!"

Aw Rats, Mr. Zumbro.

Gotta go do some reading now.
Best,
Ted

"The general public should have never been allowed to own an assault type Military Weapon."

Does this refer to a flintlock or one of them new-fangled caplocks?

Ok, I'll bite. I think maybe the question to be asking of all of us is at what point do personal rights and personal responsibility cancel each other out, or do they?

For instance, I think the fact that a criminal can walk into a gun show and purchase a gun without a background check is insane, even though it is allowed within the law. I therefore think it is our responsibility as defenders of liberty to address issues askew such as this, because abuses of liberty do justice to neither liberty nor responsible people.

Having said that, I strongly support the freedom of any law abiding citizen to own whatever firearm he chooses to own. With our own government's recent decision to federalize the national guard, and subsequent removal of Posse Comitatus rights that used to prevent the military from being used against our own citizens, I wonder if a safe full of scatterguns is sufficient anymore. An armed citizenry is (I hope), still an effective deterrent to abuses of power, which, as we all know, is the original basis for 2nd Amendment rights.

I think there is a need for hunting.

Ted wither someone writes one sentence or 5 paragraphs it's still internet blather, I'm glad I don't sit around worrying about some imaginary levee to break....can't wait to read some more of your 'blather'.

That works in many applications. It's a fundamental truth that it doesn't work with anti-gunners. They hate your double barrel just as much as they do an AR15. It is NOT a matter of degree with these people, and any serious shooter in today's world who doesn't understand this is deaf, dumb, and blind. Unilateral concessions to them that may seem "reasonable" to you will NEVER be "reasonable" to them.

One more time, how fast do you want to go down the slope?

I don't want to go down the slope with some liberal democrat at the steering wheel.

What do you think ?