Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Do handguns serve a purpose other than killing people? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lee Lichterman III who wrote (275)	5/11/2000 4:19:00 AM
From: ManyMoose	Respond to of 289

You must hunt with a bad crowd. I never met anyone like that in the NRA. Besides, it's not about hunting. It's about a fundamental freedom. The NRA is the most effective organization for training people in the proper use of firearms, and the abuses you talk about are never tolerated by the NRA. Your story just does not wash, and I believe that you are neither an antihunting hunter nor a former member of the NRA. I think you are just a garden variety anti. In case I am wrong about this, report the next redneck you see gutshooting a deer to me, and I will have a talk with him.

To: Lee Lichterman III who wrote (275)	5/14/2000 2:18:00 PM
From: Gordon A. Langston	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 289

I don't hunt so I can't say anything about your observations there except that people I know have never related such a bleek picture. I understand giving an inch and they will take a mile but the BS level has to be drawn somewhere. There is no real threat of teh British invading anymore which is why we originally wanted an armed society other than for hunting to feed the family and most of the firearms that the NRA fights for now are not hunting rifles either. My understanding is different, that the founding fathers wanted an armed citizen that was a deterrent to a tyrannical government, either within or without, and that it was a "natural right" for a person to defend himself and his family and property. You not only believe history will not repeat itself, you also believe hunting had something to do with the 2nd Amendment (if you find the reference, let me know). Any Jew in the Warsaw ghetto would have been happy to have a .25 hand gun, let alone a fully automatic M-16 or AK-47 (military versions..AR-15 and AK's are semiauto like an M-1), which unfortunately for us are hard to come by and expensive and require a class III license unless you are police or military or a criminal as we are constantly told. Why does government trust an 18 year old with an M-16 to fight for his country and then try to deny him his right to own it in regard to the 2nd Amendment. It's embarassing, I know, to think we need arms to protect us against our own government, so let's stick our head in the sand, pretend the Civil War never happened, the War of 1812 never happened, and certain aspects of WWII never happened. Let's be like England and Australia and learn to like mutton.

To: Lee Lichterman III who wrote (275)	7/13/2000 8:49:38 AM
From: JeffA	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 289

Hmmm.... ::gets out L3 Version of Consitution, reads Second Amendment:: "Free range deer, bear and other animals, being necessary for feeding and entertainment of beer swilling rednecks, the right of the people to hunt, shall not be infringed. " Well that certainly clears up your viewpoint. Maybe you should read OUR Constitution. "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. " Ah, that's the ticket. Sounds much better. I appreciate your frustration with hunters that are total idiots. I appreciate your opinion on not owning military weaponry. I don't understand you tirade against the NRA. I am an Endowment Member. That means I am in for Life plus more. I hope to ascend to Benefactor. You carry a handgun. You hunt with a handgun. You say you used to be a member. You know dang well the NRA has been critical in lobbying and pressuring Congress to let you keep the few restricted Rights you have in regards to gun ownership. I have NEVER seen an ad for a Bazooka, hand grenade, or fully automatic weapons in the NRA publications. Nor are they endorsed by the NRA. Your tirade reeks of sound bites offered by anti-hunters and anti-gunners. I question your sincerity in these posts. The NRA is THE number one source of Hunter Education and Hunter Safety. To try and tie the NRA to the endorsement of the red neck trash that hunts in the methods described is beyond my comprehension. The police in this country, many schools, even the military turn to the NRA for training, competitions and support for the hobby of shooting. I don't see the need for several weapons that are legal either. But you will NOT see me denying the Right of others to own what is legal and letting them use it in a responsible and safe way. In my opinion, your first paragraph gave you up as an anti-gunner schooled from HCI or the like. I don't believe your rant or that you were ever in the NRA or that you read the American Rifleman. As far as handguns, or other rifles being needed in case of war, why don't you go ask some of the people in Kosovo that lived through the rape camps if they would have preferred a .25 cal semi after all the bombs stopped dropping and the house by house clearing and rounding up of people was going on. You are right in that against a total on-slaught our weapons would be useless, but they would have to try & round them up man-to-man at some time. At that time, I contend, is when the tables would be turned. I wish you luck and health and better education in what the NRA is and actually stands for. -Jeff