Courtesy of Microsoft Clip Arts
Most of you who know me are probably aware I am very much against private citizens owning guns except for hunting. AND the hunter should be eating what they’ve shot. AND the hunter should be proficient enough he does not require multiple bullets to kill the animal he is hunting. I have made my opinions of automatic weapons well known on other people’s blogs, especially after Newtown.
I was taking a nap a couple weeks ago & when I woke up, I found a program on the TV that I thought might just change my mind. A gentleman from one of the southern states was being interviewed by a journalist about his business. In the area where he lives, there is a huge problem with wild hogs. These hogs are killing farmer’s crops, ruining their fields & injuring their livestock. They showed the damage to the fields & how horses & cattle could trip into the holes & break their legs. Apparently it has become such a problem, this fellow has offered his services to the farmers to get rid of these hogs.
The fellow running the business seemed like a very nice individual with a good head on his shoulders. He started talking about how he needed to use semi-automatic weapons in his business because the hogs often hunted in packs (a mama & all of her litter together) & unless you got them all, they would just keep coming back. They showed the hogs rooting around in the fields through night vision goggles & sure enough the hogs were always in groups or packs. You could see how you would need to be able to shoot quickly to get all those hogs. The fellow talked about how he could shoot the hogs with a single shot rifle, but it would make his job so much harder & some would get away & he preferred a particular brand of semi-automatic rifle.
I was just about convinced this might not be a bad thing, then the fellow started talking about how he doesn’t even charge the farmers. I was sure this just might be the one exception to the semi-automatic I could get behind when he mentioned he doesn’t charge the farmers because he charges other men for the privilege of coming to hunt these hogs.
I was absolutely crushed. There is nothing good about semi-automatic guns & charging people money to hunt with them should be a crime! What if they take what they’ve learned from this hunt & take it to commit crimes?
Apr 08, 2013 @ 04:39:35
I wrote on this extensively-the feral hog issue actually IS a huge problem. Charging for hunting is not only nothing new, but I don’t see anything wrong with it with regard to feral hogs. I assume you’ve never been driving on vacation and come across them running across the road, causing accidents.
Guns are not the problem-people are. If we had allowed the Brits to disarm us, we’d have no country.
Everyone is entitled to his/her owm opinion, of course. I absolutely do not agree with infringing on constitutional rights that a person doesn’t agree with.
And let us not forget-the criminals don’t honor laws. They will keep their guns. Check out the statistics on gun violence in Chicago after the ban.
People ard so misled into thinking restricting is the answer when all it really does is give the upper hand to criminals.
I guess, though, when the shtf, people can have pork in abundace so long as they can get them…..
{I’ll try and paste the link later.}
Of course, ymmv…..
LikeLike
Apr 08, 2013 @ 05:41:09
http://tikktok.wordpress.com/2012/03/17/a-scourge-upon-the-earth/
LikeLike
Apr 08, 2013 @ 07:25:49
Hmmm, how do you feel about a woman’s right to choose what to do with her body?
LikeLike
Apr 08, 2013 @ 08:23:50
What does one have to do with the other? 🙂 Moral issue of abortion aside {and I assume that’s what you’re talking about}, I don’t think the government has the right to dictate what does or does not happen with ones body- this also applies to things like vaccination. {an example of this is the cervical cancer vaccine that is mandatory in Texas; signed into law by Rick Perry for girls in the*6th* grade- vaccinating 6th grade girls for sexually transmitted disease consequence?!}
The abortion question comes down to not just what happens with a woman’s own body- there’s another person in there that is equally alive, and eventually, able to live outside the womb.
It’s amazing to me how many are pro-abortion but anti-death penalty. Not to hijack a post, but killing is killing. 🙂
I get very tired of people assuming that anyone pro- 2nd Ammendment is also some right-republican conservative Christian nut job. It’s considerably easier to paint folks with a broad brush and label them instead of allowing them to disagree with one’s own position-and be respectful about it. 😀
LikeLike
Apr 08, 2013 @ 15:12:30
I just asked your view. And you just gave it. Thank you!
LikeLike
Apr 08, 2013 @ 15:05:11
I feel women should have the right to choose what they do with their own body. No woman should be forced to carry to term a baby she does not want or cannot support. I do not believe in using abortion as a form of birth control though. And I believe in the death penalty for those people who have killed more than once & have definitely had good representation in court. If there is a shadow of a doubt, then lifelong imprisonment is the way to go.
LikeLike
Apr 08, 2013 @ 14:45:39
Of course everyone is entitled to their opinion. I do not object to people hunting, as long as they eat what they kill. I do not disagree with culling over populations of animals when they threaten other species either, as long as good use is made of the culled animals. What I do object to is the type of weapon these people are using. Hunting is a sport & I think it should be treated as a sport, not heavily swayed in the hunter’s direction by the use of weapons that should be reserved for the army or law enforcement officials. If people want to hunt, they should treat the animals with respect, not just mow them down with a hail of bullets. Also, if these types of weapons were not so common place, people would not think of them as their first weapon of choice.
LikeLike
Apr 09, 2013 @ 10:26:09
Nobody’s trying to disarm anybody! Guns don’t kill people … but people WITH guns certainly do.
I believe that responsible gun owners should be in favor of registrations and background checks, they should store their guns unloaded and locked away when not in use and, most importantly, be held accountable for any damage that their weapons cause.
LikeLike
Apr 09, 2013 @ 17:13:09
Unfortunately it is usually the unlicensed gun owners who cause most of the damage. When they are finished with their rampages who is left behind to pay for the damage. And how do you compensate someone for losing a child or a husband?
LikeLike
Apr 09, 2013 @ 12:01:43
As far as the infallability of the Constitution (which I also revere), even basic rights have been abrogated for the greater good.
You aren’t allowed to yell fire in a crowded theater, despite Freedom of Speech.
Why is it such a leap to restrict some of the guns available, while not gutting the ammendment?
(I don’t mean to take a shot at your beliefs, I just don’t understand the reliance on the statement of the constitution, when most ammendments (and rights) have exceptions to them.)
LikeLike
Apr 09, 2013 @ 14:41:26
I don’t disagree that we need frequent, large doses of common sense. It would be nice ti have critical thinking skills, too, but that may be going too far, lol.
Extended background checks are good, as are waiting periods. Need a high magazine weapon? No problem. Wait for it.
It’s the broad strokes people get painted with. It’s easy to say guns need to be empty and locked up.
What about holding our own gevernment responsible for putting those same assault weapons on the streets? {Surely no one is naiive enough to think they just stayed with the drug cartels in Mexico- there’s a reason ‘Fast and ‘Furious’ happened.
It seems to me we pick and choose who we want to hold accountable any more.
And, the crux of this- it’s very similar to the abortion issue: even if you ban it all, the barn door has already been open. They will still be out there, available. Criminals don’t obey laws. They aren’t going to turn them in or stop getting access to them.
I can promise you, though, that had people been armed in the theatre, they would have shot back and there would have been fewer casualties.
The slope is slippery-and it’s always wet, even if it doesn’t look or feel like it.
I’m glad the colonials stuck to their guns. 😉
LikeLike
Apr 09, 2013 @ 15:10:09
I’m glad the colonials did too, but I remember the Giffords shooting. An off duty officer heard the shooting, came out of a supermarket with his gun drawn. Teh action had ended by then, and the only person holding a gun was someone who had disarmed the shooter.
The off-duty had to use all his restraint to not shoot that guy, who was innocent.
I don’t think the solution to a gun problem is more guns. I can’t help but think that just gets more bodies.
The shooting fatality rate in AZ is twice that of NY, and look at their positions on guns.
LikeLike
Apr 10, 2013 @ 07:20:48
And look at places like Chicago where there is a ban. Had more people been carrying at the supermarket, there wouldn’t have been just a single person out there with a weapon, and there wouldn’t have been the same kind of confusion. It would be obvious by all the guns being pointed at the shooter.
Now, in NM, you can open carry walking down the street, but can’t take them into establishments.
Criminals are going to pack either way. Background checks won’t make a dent in the illegal weapons already making their way into the hands of the crazies.
Just my .02, of course. And I know it’s not a popular opinion for the masses. {Did you know there is a higher incidence of mental illness in cities? There is something to be said about herd mentality……….. 😉 } Just as I am unlikely to convince anyone otherwise, the same can be said about the opposite argument.
And lest anyone say I’m “wrong” because I haven’t been “touched” by gun violence and if I had, I would surely see ‘the light’, let me just say my brother died by gun 18 years ago. So there’s that.
LikeLike
Apr 10, 2013 @ 09:31:05
I wouldn’t say anything to question your character, and I am sorry for your brother.
And while neither of us will probably convince the other, the back and forth is good.
One other thing to note, in either NM or AZ, out of several hundred gun deaths in 2012, about 1/3 were suicide, or accidental.
At the very least, there should be a requirement for intense gun handling training before purchase. Do you think that would infringe on teh right to bear arms? And if the certification was a requirement for gun purchasing, that might also cover the same ground as registration.
LikeLike
Apr 09, 2013 @ 17:23:12
Would we really have had less casualties in the movie theatre or just more innocents caught in the crossfire?
LikeLike
Apr 10, 2013 @ 07:14:40
Less casualties. Imagine if most everyone was packing. How many people do you think he would have had time to shoot before being taken out?
I know I would have shot him. My husband would have shot him, too. Neither of us would have missed.
People who have concealed carry take classes, which include shooting proficiency. Down to the last person I personally know with a licence, they take their skills seriously. And they practice.
He might have gotten a few shots off, but by the time people were hitting the deck, had there been those in the theatre carrying, they would have saved lives. No doubt about it.
Criminals are cowards, emboldened by their weapons. If the playing field was leveled and they knew they had equal chance of being shot themselves, I am certain they would think twice. And if they didn’t- they’d be dead. 😀
LikeLike
Apr 09, 2013 @ 17:17:36
I agree with you Guapster! When we know better we do better. When the original amendment to the constitution allowed people to bear arms, there were still redcoats around to run off! As a society grows & learns, the laws it makes should grow & learn as well. Restricting the ownership & sale of firearms should grow & learn with the rest of our laws!
LikeLike
Apr 08, 2013 @ 06:30:39
Don’t be so closed minded. What about those days when I just want to relax by mowing down an entire herd of Zebras. Are you telling me I should use a flintlock rifle instead of my .50 heavy machinegun? And if I don’t use at least an assault rifle on full auto to hunt rare and endangered species, what if I miss the first time? They are rare. I might not get another chance.
LikeLike
Apr 08, 2013 @ 14:47:21
Give the rare animals a chance, hunt them with a stone tied to the end of a stick! 😉
LikeLike
Apr 08, 2013 @ 15:49:28
That’s what I always say. Hunting a deer with a rifle and scope isn’t a sport. One team doesn’t even know it’s in the game. Getting into a cage with a bear when you only have a pocket knife, that would be a sport.
LikeLike
Apr 09, 2013 @ 10:26:55
OMG, you’re hysterical!
LikeLike
Apr 09, 2013 @ 10:34:43
Oh, stop.
LikeLike
Apr 09, 2013 @ 14:43:15
Why not use a multi-slung sling shot? 😆
LikeLike
Apr 09, 2013 @ 14:51:40
Or a flame thrower… cook and hunt at the same time.
LikeLike
Apr 10, 2013 @ 07:21:17
Mmmmmm, that sounds yummy……… 😆
LikeLike
Apr 10, 2013 @ 08:26:42
Just don’t set the trees on fire… we gotta be environmentally friendly.
LikeLike
Apr 08, 2013 @ 07:25:07
Wait, he hunts a pack of hogs with a pack of hunters and STILL needs a semi-automatic weapon? What kinds of shots are these people?
LikeLike
Apr 08, 2013 @ 08:29:48
read up on feral hogs- these aren’t the cute little piggies that you find in grandpa’s barnyard……………… 😆 You can also research hogs like Hogzilla, too. Not that they all get that big, but they certainly can. And they are *mean* and aggressive.
LikeLike
Apr 08, 2013 @ 14:49:02
To his way of thinking, because this is how he makes his living, he has the right to choose whatever tool best suits his purpose. Just like a carpenter has the right to choose whatever type of hammer best works for him, he should be able to choose whatever gun makes his job easier.
LikeLike
Apr 08, 2013 @ 07:47:07
I agree with you.
Nice post.
LikeLike
Apr 08, 2013 @ 14:51:33
Thank you, I don’t want to take away anyone’s rights, I just wish people in government would give these issues a little more thought. Seat belt laws were not popular when they first came out & some people thought they were infringing on their rights, but the laws have proven to save lives & so they stay in effect.
LikeLike
Apr 08, 2013 @ 11:24:06
I’m not really an expert on guns, but there are plenty of guns between a single-shot rifle and a semi-automatic. There are guns that you can fire multiple times without changing the clip, that are not semi-automatic. For example, a pump-action rifle that’s so prominently featured in the movies (shoot, reload by moving a round thingy down the barrel, shoot again) “Thingy” has a proper name, but as I said, I’m not an expert.
LikeLike
Apr 08, 2013 @ 15:14:18
I would not be against this type of gun. I’m not saying you need to stop & re-load between each time you pull the trigger, just that there should be some kind of pause between pulling the trigger & the next bullet coming out. If you depress the trigger & 30 bullets come out, that’s too many. You have had no time to think about what you are doing or even changing your mind.
LikeLike
Apr 08, 2013 @ 22:29:24
when you pull trigger once and the gun keeps shooting until you release trigger/or bullets run out, that’s that’s a fully automatic weapon. These are illegal.
Semi-automatic is when you pull the trigger once, and one bullet comes out, and the next one loads to the chamber, so that the only thing you need to shoot again is to pull the trigger again. With that one, you could fire twice every second, depending on how quick your fingers are. That’s what Adam Lanza used. He fired about 150 times in about 5 minutes, including all the magazine reloads and walking between the classrooms.
These are legal, and it’s not that hard to equip these with huge magazines, or modify some of the semi-auto rifles into full auto.
LikeLike
Apr 08, 2013 @ 23:03:18
If someone can fire multiple bullets I would like for this person to have time to think between each trigger pull, so they can change their mind if they want. There needs to be more thought to killing something than just a jerk of the finger.
LikeLike
Apr 08, 2013 @ 19:05:36
Assault rifles have been available since Bush and Cheney let the ban expire. the Pigs are multiplying. Ergo assault weapons are not the answer to this problem. In fact, they are the answer to no problems. They are the FUCKING PROBLEM.
LikeLike
Apr 08, 2013 @ 22:17:56
Thank God the pigs aren’t yet armed. Once they discover they can go around the background checks, we’re screwed.
LikeLike
Apr 09, 2013 @ 05:04:56
Yup. Totally screwed!
LikeLike
Apr 08, 2013 @ 23:04:43
Hunters should get to be better shots so they can do more with single shot guns when they are hunting for FOOD!
LikeLike
Apr 08, 2013 @ 23:05:52
I wouldn’t doubt pigs could get a weapon!
LikeLike
Apr 10, 2013 @ 11:13:52
I don’t think it’s been proven that the Death Penalty stops murders, so I’m not sure if having a chance to get killed by a bystander would be much of a deterrent.
LikeLike
Apr 11, 2013 @ 01:24:52
Wow you really got people fired up with this post! Shots fired this way and that! Whew! Glad no one was hurt by those wordy bullets left in your comment boxes! 🙂
LikeLike
Apr 11, 2013 @ 15:54:50
Luckily verbal bullets don’t kill anyone! This topic did indeed get people fired up!
LikeLike