Welcome to the Wild-About-Trapping.com Forums

2nd Amendment is not about hunting
Page 1 of 1

Author:  doc9013 [ 17 Jan 2013, 21:06 ]
Post subject:  2nd Amendment is not about hunting

I was talking to an elderly gentleman yesterday who owns guns and hunts. He asked me if I really thought that we need 100- round clips to hunt. :shock: :shock: :shock: He was in favor of going along with the liberal idiots who think it OK to ban "assault" rifles and high - capacity magazines, because we don't need them to hunt. He asked me why I thought we need them . :--? :--? :--?

I told him we don't need them to hunt. We need them for self-defense. He looked at me like I had lost my mind. 8) 8) 8)

The liberals want us to believe that the 2nd Amendment is about hunting, but it isn't.

Just do a little research on the founding fathers, and the debate over the amendment, and you can clearly see the intent of the Amendment.

They were concerned about the right of self-defense, and the ability of the people to repel a foreign invasion, and also protection from tyrannical governments.... including our own. :wink: :wink:

Here are just a few examples :

Patrick Henry : " guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined ".

James Madison: assured the citizens that they need not fear government because of " the advantage of being armed " .

George Mason : " to disarm the people ; that is the best and most effectual way to enslave them".

Alexander Hamilton : " If circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens ...........who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow citizens " .

Noah Webster : " Before a standing army can rule the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the crowd, because the people are armed" .

Thomas Jefferson : " The beauty of the 2nd amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it "

Jefferson : " No freeman shall be debarred the use of firearms " .

There are more, but did any of you see any mention of hunting in any of those quotes ? The liberals know that if they can make this a debate about hunting, they will eventually succeed, because only a small minority of Americans actually hunt.

This will hopefully give you some "ammo" to use against anyone you talk to who wants to ban guns, or magazines, or ammo.

Don't know who said this , but I saw it somewhere last week : " Be careful when you take the gun from my cold ,dead hands, because the barrel will be hot " .

Author:  Loxahatchee [ 17 Jan 2013, 21:34 ]
Post subject:  Re: 2nd Amendment is not about hunting

Well put Doc.

Author:  Swamp Rat [ 17 Jan 2013, 21:43 ]
Post subject:  Re: 2nd Amendment is not about hunting

Thanks for the post Doc, hope you don't mind, I shared it on Facebook.

Author:  NonPCfed [ 17 Jan 2013, 21:49 ]
Post subject:  Re: 2nd Amendment is not about hunting

I hunt and have hunted with 25-30 round clips. I have not used the standard 10-round Ruger 10-22 clip for 15+ years or so. I have 25 round Ram-line and a 30 round clip (can't remember the brand right now). They are very handy where I'm not reloading a 10 round clip when hunting rabbits, squirrels, jacks, whatever other mammel small game I choose to hunt. I have hunted jackrabbits and coyotes with a 30 round clip for my Ruger Min-14. The only hunting reg in SD that restricts larger clips is for hunting deer where only 6 rounds can be in magazine/chamber of a semi-auto rifle. If I wanted to buy and lug around a 100 round .223 drum to go shoot at priairie dogs I could do so (but wouldn't really want to).

But doc is 100%, the Constitutional teeth in the 2nd Amendment is not anything about hunting, its about self protection. Unfortunately, hunting has been ruled a privilege that can be lost. A right is something that can't be taken away, although convicted felons supposedly lose their "right" to bear arms so there may be a judicial process where a right can be stripped from a citizen??

Author:  doc9013 [ 17 Jan 2013, 21:59 ]
Post subject:  Re: 2nd Amendment is not about hunting

Swamp Rat wrote:
Thanks for the post Doc, hope you don't mind, I shared it on Facebook.

My copyright attorneys will be contacting you in the morning Swamp. Hope you have a good lawyer. :x :x :x :x :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Author:  Swamp Rat [ 17 Jan 2013, 22:08 ]
Post subject:  Re: 2nd Amendment is not about hunting

doc9013 wrote:
Swamp Rat wrote:
Thanks for the post Doc, hope you don't mind, I shared it on Facebook.

My copyright attorneys will be contacting you in the morning Swamp. Hope you have a good lawyer. :x :x :x :x :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

:oops: :cry: I only know DIVORCE LAWYERS!!!! :? 8|- :lol:

Author:  doc9013 [ 17 Jan 2013, 22:10 ]
Post subject:  Re: 2nd Amendment is not about hunting

Swamp Rat wrote:
doc9013 wrote:
Swamp Rat wrote:
Thanks for the post Doc, hope you don't mind, I shared it on Facebook.

My copyright attorneys will be contacting you in the morning Swamp. Hope you have a good lawyer. :x :x :x :x :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

:oops: :cry: I only know DIVORCE LAWYERS!!!! :? 8|- :lol:

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: Forgive me Swamp , but that was funny. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Author:  calebmatthews [ 18 Jan 2013, 20:54 ]
Post subject:  Re: 2nd Amendment is not about hunting

Good post, and true! A nation without arms is a nation in chains.

Author:  NonPCfed [ 19 Jan 2013, 20:43 ]
Post subject:  Re: 2nd Amendment is not about hunting

I'd sent an e-mail letter to my Congressional delegation several weeks back about what has been going on. The two Republicans replied to me last night. They must have been waiting for Barry O and Smirking Joe to lay out their public plans. Haven't heard from our Demo senator and probably won't. Here's the letters I got back:

"Dear :

Thank you for contacting me about the debate surrounding Second Amendment rights. I appreciate hearing from you.

There is no doubt that we have witnessed great tragedy and violence in our nation with the devastating mass shootings that occurred in 2012. There is no place for this type of violence in our society. As we move forward, we will need to look for a better understanding of ways we can prevent such violent acts from happening in the future. In order to truly find a lasting solution, we need to look at what happened from all sides and every contributing factor.

On January 16, 2013, the President held a press conference to outline his plan to reduce gun violence, which included 23 executive actions and various legislative proposals. The executive orders included requiring federal agencies to provide relevant data to the background check system, improving ways for states to share information with the background check system, providing law enforcement and school officials with proper training for active shooter situations, and increasing mental health parity. They did not include any gun registry or gun ban laws.

However, the President called on Congress to pass various legislative proposals, including the reenactment of a federal assault weapons ban and limitation on ammunition magazines to 10 rounds. While I agree that we must keep criminal and high-risk individuals from obtaining and using firearms, I strongly question the ability of weapon bans to prevent such individuals from acquiring firearms, especially since they are already banned from receiving or possessing firearms.

Rather than disarming law-abiding citizens and passing more restrictions, we should shift our focus on making the current restrictions more effective and efficient. Congress has passed laws that are aimed at preventing criminals and certain individuals from obtaining firearms. For example, the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act requires background checks for the purchase of firearms from licensed dealers and prohibits nine classes of persons from receiving or possessing firearms, including persons convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment exceeding one year, fugitives, persons that unlawfully use any controlled substance, and persons adjudicated as “mentally defective.”

A large portion of the debate surrounding mass shootings involves mental illness. The Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) is the central clearinghouse that must be checked before a firearm can be transferred. While those adjudicated “mentally defective” are prohibited from receiving or purchasing firearms, only about half of all states forward records of persons adjudicated as mentally defective to the FBI. Reforming and modifying the NICS will help ensure that firearms will not get into the hands of those suffering from mental illness. As we look for solutions, we also need to look closely at our healthcare system and evaluate areas of improvement in order to help those suffering from mental illness.

We also need to have a serious discussion about safety in our schools. We need to identify ways to increase security in our schools and provide more counseling services to students. Our children deserve a safe place to learn and fulfill their educational goals.

This is a complex problem that deserves complex solutions. A great amount of emotion surrounds this debate and I hope logic and facts will guide our solutions. As we move forward as a nation to prevent such acts from happening in the future, I will listen to all sides and proposals with an open mind.

Thanks again for contacting me and sharing your thoughts. If you would like additional information on my activities in the Senate, please feel free to visit my website, http://www.thune.senate.gov. Please keep in touch.

Kindest regards,

United States Senator"

"Dear ,

On December 14, 2012, our nation experienced an unspeakable tragedy in Newtown, Connecticut. I continue to pray for the victims of this terrible event and their families and loved ones.

This tragedy has people across the country asking if there are steps that can be taken to prevent something like this from ever happening again. While a discussion about what can be done to prevent future tragedies is needed, I believe any discussion needs to be consistent with our rights, values and traditions.

Some Members of the House and Senate have proposed legislation to further regulate firearms. Many of these plans would ban the sale, transfer, and possession of certain types of firearms as well as high-capacity magazines. Recently, the President put his support behind these legislative efforts. I do not support reinstatement of the assault weapons ban in large part because the previous ban did not result in a significant reduction in gun violence according to federal data. Instead, I believe we should place a stronger focus on enforcing existing gun laws to keep weapons from those who, under law, are not allowed to possess them.

I do not believe it is productive to simply talk about banning guns. If we want to have a positive impact on increasing safety in our schools and communities, we should focus on improving recognition and treatment of mental illness and also look at addressing the violence that is so prevalent in our culture, including our television shows, movies and video games.

I have opposed gun control measures in the past and continue to support the individual right to keep and bear arms – a freedom written as a guarantee to Americans in the Constitution. I will be looking closely at the President's proposals, and will work to ensure the constitutional rights of law-abiding gun owners are not threatened. I believe we can still have a thoughtful debate about how to reduce gun violence while protecting the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding South Dakotans.

Thanks again for reaching out to my office. Please let me know whenever I can be of assistance, and visit my website noem.house.gov to get more information on the latest congressional news important to South Dakota, or find me on Facebook or Twitter.

Kristi Noem"

Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group