Hunting is not a justification for gun ownership

Okay, so before you start hating on me, let me clarify! Hunting is not any additional justification over any other peaceful use of a firearm.

You know when you're talking about how you want an M16 or a MAC-10, and that one guy says "what! what could you possibly want that gun for! it has no legitimate use in hunting!". Yeah. That guy.

They figure that if you're shooting for food, that justifies the "risk" that you're going to go on some sort of rampage. After all - food is necessary! Everyone eats!

[hr][/hr]

What complete nonsense. I'm going to have to side with the vegetarians on this one. You could very easily consume 100% vegetables, without any dire health effects at all. How do I know? I was a vegetarian for 2 years (it's complicated, I was in college, don't ask ). Your hunting exception is just one of many enjoyable+peaceful uses of firearms.

More than hunting, I find owning and shooting firearms enjoyable (though I also hunt vermin). I shoot for sport, and I shoot as a hobby - as an end in itself. Since we've established that the 'necessity' of hunting is complete nonsense, why is your peaceful + enjoyable use of a firearm superior to mine? I don't want to hurt others any more than your average hunter.

[hr][/hr]

So what is the clear, undeniable reason behind the monopoly hunting seems to have on justifications for owning a weapon?

Hunting can be restricted to bolt action or (at worst) semi-auto weapons. Sure, people hunt with select-fire weapons, but how does hunting justify that sort of firearm? They don't need it. They should use a .22LR bolt action with a capacity of 5 rounds.

The myriad of other peaceful + enjoyable uses of firearms; however, are open ended. You can enjoy shooting an M16 at the range every bit as much as a Mosin-Nagant - almost certainly more so, depending on your inclination.

[hr][/hr]

The need to justify yourself to the state is, in my opinion, the most insidious of all gun control proposals. If you've tried to purchase an class 3 NFA weapon in the states you might be familiar with this evil, but in Australia it pervades all of firearm ownership. Not only do you need to justify your intent (self defense is not an accepted justification), you need to justify the specific class of gun for that purpose. Good luck getting a handgun for any sort of hunting, good luck getting any sort of semi-auto rifle at all.

Don't let it happen to you.

 

I love the "why do you need it argument". The same could be said of motorcycles, gambling, drinking, smoking, designer clothes, expensive watches, or anyone who makes in excess of 75k per year. You don't need any of that, and yet we have the right to live our lives the way we want.

Make no mistake, the more the government makes decisions for you, the closer we all get to tyranny.

 

The state moves the onus from being on them to show that you're coercing others, to being on you to prove that you aren't. That seems to me to be a fundamental violation of your liberty.

And it pervades near every area of my life - every hobby I have is licensed, regulated, or outright illegal.

[hr][/hr]

I don't mean to take my own thread off topic

Get back to it!

 

gun control at the federal level is one of the worst examples of unconstitutional idiocy existing because of dishonest judges and politicians. When gun banners ask why do we NEED "assault weapons" I am tempted to say because gun banners exist and one day might try to impose their sick dreams on us. But the real question is why do we "Need" nanny state control freaks? We don't

 

"people hunt with select-fire weapons"
HMMM........guessing you did NOT know that a "select fire weapon" without really hard to get licenses is against the law. They have been since the still in affect Gun Law of 1934......
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act

When will these anti-no-nothing gun people get that straight? It's is VERY HARD to get the licenses to own a machine gun (also known as a "select fire" weapon????
Don't believe me........Go try and buy one!!!!

 

Not to mention they've obviously never experienced one. I wonder if they have any idea how heavy the ammo would be that you would need to support said automatic weapon. I personally have no desire to own one, it would be more of a hinderance and danger than any possible benefit of it could outweigh.

 

And doesn't that get down to the brass tacks? We need not justify to our government why we may own and carry a firearm. That is the point of the 2nd amendment, just to make sure everyone was clear on that.

 

I think I can clear this up. The constitut.......actually its none of anyones business why I want to own a gun. If you think so perhaps youll agree to answer some personal questions from me?

 

I am actually in the process of acquiring a sound suppressor, the only difference between that and an automatic weapon is the monetary cost.

Purchasing Class III items is not as difficult as so many people assume, it is just time consuming. I am hoping that my Form 1 will be approved by Christmas.

 

You've both completely missed the point of what I was saying. I was conceding the limited use of a select-fire gun for hunting. I merely said that people do indeed use them for hunting, which is an undeniable fact. I suggest you Google "[insert select fire weapon here] hunting", and you'll be greeted with a myriad of videos demonstrating just that.

Don't be so quick to jump on people you disagree with. It makes you look desperate.

The constitution is a tyrannical document. The absurd interpretations concocted by the Supreme Court are a function of its investment of arbitrary and expansive powers in the federal government. SCOTUS has never interpreted using the pure meaning of the words or the intent of the framers. It is empowered to rule in terms of both law and equity, and is given a constructionist mandate. Read the preamble. Read the writings of Brutus, Cato, Patrick Henry, John DeWitt, etc.

The constitution is not a conservative document.

I'd be more than happy to, no matter your views.

If I want one I'll have to resort to the deep web. Hey, at least there are no forms!

A favorite of mine is "why do you need a car that goes faster than 110km/h?". The statewide speed limit is 110km/h, and hundreds of people are killed each year by cars going above that speed.

Justify yourself to the state!

 

So you are ready to answer some very personal questions? Can we get moderator approval first? Be prepared they will be very personal. Agree?

 

Uhh... how personal? Just ask them lol and I'll decide if they're too personal.

 

I wasn't disagreeing, I was just saying I wouldn't really want one myself under general circumstances.

Only time I probably would want one is if a rioting mob were trying to burn down my house or something.

 

We agree on many topics here, but on this one we are in total disagreement. First off hunting, especially for animals such as deer, is a requirement it is the only way the population is kept at manageable levels and animals are not dying from starvation. Seconding hunting is a sport and often far more human than how domesticated animals are dispatched, go to a meat packing plant and you will be off meat for a while. I would also remind you that hunters and fishermen are the only reason many preserves even exist the money they pay for license's is what funds them. As for semiautomatic weapons, yes they can and are used for hunting, it is a myth that they are only for killing people, I know this because I have used every gun I own to hunt, including the several AR's I own, it is more to do about ammunition than caliber size or operation characteristics. And one more point, yes some guns are particularly good at dealing with two legged varmints and guess what that is a darn good reason for many gun owners to have them. You live in a country that does not have the same culture, especially when it comes to the number of guns in the hands of citizens, hence crimes committed by criminals do not involve guns nearly as often, but here in the US that is not the case, guns in the hands is a reality and nothing can truly be done to change that. And one last point; maybe you trust your government, but here in the US we do not and as our Founding Fathers understood and made sure was covered in our Constitution an armed populous is a deterrent to tyranny. If you do not want to hunt, that is your choice, if you do not want a gun for self-defense, that is also your choice, but as you have a choice (do you?) then others should have the same choices.

 

I have a Colt .45 ACP and a .44 Magnum Smith & Wesson, both with permissions from Germany (which you get after one year membership in a shooting club and some safety instructions, same as in France,where I live now). Recently I was in an Outdoor department store in Paris and saw an AK 47 and a German WWII MP 40 hanging on the wall behind the salesman. I asked him, if the MP 40 is for "decoration or for sale". Now I own it (I don't have the 9mm ammunition for it). In the French constitution it is written that "every citizen has the right to own firearms". Therefore in France for hand guns the permission like above is required, rifles of any kind only have to be registered after the purchase. No permission required. Like the salesman said: if you don't register, you are only allowed to use it at home." The MP 40, which is a working replica produced in Spain, is an interesting peace of technology and history. "I want to have it" for me is enough justification to own it. From my experience owning guns and knowing what they can do is teaching you how to resolve disputes without using firearms, not the way around. That is not how criminals think. They don't even have disputes. Taking away their guns will let them change their methods, not their profession. But to be honest: I have absolutely no use for the MP 40. even with ammunition and on a firing range: what is the advantage of making 50 holes in 10 seconds? And before i would use it for non selective self defense I probably would try to run faster than the rest.

 

WA was going to implement conservation hunting in state forests, but the greenies and animal rights organizations fired back and the plan was shelved.

I assist farmers with extermination, so don't get be wrong - but I think the usefulness of firearms for conservation is somewhat overstated by the shooting community. There are other methods which work quite adequately: 1080 baiting for instance. Sure, every kill helps, but you don't need a firearm to reduce vermin populations.

We seem to be on different pages - I am not saying that hunting isn't a good reason to own a firearm, I'm saying that it's not the only reason. I'm saying that hunting is no better a reason than merely wanting to stroke the thing.

I'm saying that hunting is but one of thousands; millions of possible peaceful uses of a firearm.

I agree to an extent. At least in Australia, criminals get a lot of their weapons from theft from licensed owners. To that extent, the degree to which you reduce licensed weapons also reduces that number of stolen weapons. But yes - the US has more guns than people, and a very decent gun culture - there is no conceivable chance of this changing, no matter the extent of gun control implemented. You could implement a summary execution on the spot policy for anyone found with a firearm, and they'd still be common.

I agree - except about the constitution being decent, of course.

However, the same should apply to drugs. Drug prohibition is the right's gun control. It's funny how so many of these issues are exactly paralleled in principle on the other side.

 

Ahhh folded before I even started. How personal is subjective much like why someone decides to own a gun. You either agree to answer them all or you will prove yourself a hypocrite on this matter.

 

Just ask the damn questions and I'll answer them to the best of my ability.

 

Do you agree to answer all? Or have I forced you to understand why someones personal reason for owning a gun is none of your business?

 

Oi! That's the point of this thread! The number of misunderstandings in this thread is through the roof.

For the last time: I support the ability of anyone to purchase any weapon they want without the consent of the state. The state should not even have knowledge a transaction has taken place, let alone be able to pick and choose which reasons are adequate. Is that a strong enough affirmation for you?

If you actually have questions then yes, ask them and I will answer all.

 

Thanks. My first question is....why didnt you just say that the first time? sorry dude my apologies I misunderstood your stance.

 

I think it's simply due to the title of the post, it is a little misleading.

 

Well my reading it from my phone in microscopic font didnt help either.

 

" I merely said that people do indeed use them for hunting, which is an undeniable fact. I suggest you Google "[insert select fire weapon here] hunting","
Though I'm sure some use a full automatic weapon.....it is still NOT easy to get that kind of weapon.
And, it's up to YOU to Google and post, NOT ME. I already POSTED the law that says you are full of it.
Google up or go away.