Thinking of starting a political issue thingy. A PAC. Whatever. I will call for a ban on all hunting firearms. Blackpowder, fancy camouflaged rifles, duck guns, that sort of thing. A lot of them have been modified or designed in such a way to make them impractical for self-defense or militia use. That's not sanctioned/enumerated by the 2nd Amendment. And hunters have shooting accidents every year. Dick Cheney’s known ‘accidental’ lawyer shooting is a case in point.
If the liberals want to ban guns, they can go ahead and ban those. Throw those guys under the bus. The Constitution was about defense of person and nation, not killing poor little Bambi. There is no enumerated right for hunters. Now. Let’s see how THEY like it. Underside of the bus is a bit smudgy, ain’t it?
Of course, conservation matters. There will still need to be deer killing to keep them from over-populating and dying in much greater numbers. But that can be done with milsurp rifles or even AR-10s. Excess ducks and geese die just fine by tactical home-defense shotguns as they do with $10,000 Italian jobs. And you don’t have to wait for them to fly before killing them. Shoot them standing on the ground. Lots of suburban ponds and lakes would appreciate fewer geese pooping all over. And if you shoot them on the ground, that is safer for the people in nearby splitlevel ranch style houses (known in the real estate biz as 'Splanch' style homes (yeah, I know)).
There is nothing in the 2nd Amendment about Sportsmen or Sporting Use, unlike the stated defense purposes, so there is nothing wrong with banning and confiscating these dangerous guns in the arms of fumble fingered old men. If they want to keep them, let them pass an Amendment that reads, “the desires of hunters being important enough to protect by this Nations foundation document, the right to keep and bear bambi-killing and daffy-duck-killing firearms shall only be lightly infringed” or something. The target-only shooters might want to get in on this. Other than practice for defense training there is really no need for things like fancy .17 caliber target competition guns.
Why am I ranting so? Every so often you hear about some hunting advocate talk like, “I don’t want you to ban my rifle, but I’ll support efforts to ban AR-15s or Glocks if you just promise to leave my stuff alone. That’ll give you cover and you gun-banners will be happy.” Fake organizations like AHSA try to capitalize on this. They think they can sacrifice to the anti-human-rights beast and not be eaten in the end. And I like to fantasize about turning the tables on these Fudds (derogatory term for that type of anti-gun hunter. Shortened term for Elmer Fudd) and their wrong headed policies.
Would I really do this type issue advocacy? No. But I am lazy and principled.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Abso-freaking-lutely right on.
I recently proposed something similar in my American National Government class. The whole room thought I was nuts, until the instructor told them I was exactly right. I even got credit for working it into my report on D.C. v. Heller.
Post a Comment