There was a thread before about whether or not you want guns in your house....but recently, in the thread about kerry, it kinda got started about guns being taken away. so how do ya'll feel about it??

I know that if my right to bear arms was taken away...well, id be pretty pissed. i've grown up around guns...i feel safer with one around me. everyone in my house knows how to use one....im a hunter, my dads a hunter, my SO's a hunter...so that would screw up our way of life if our guns were taken.

i would be pissed if they tried to take away my right to own a gun. it is my right to be able to defend myself and my family...hell i'd probably shoot whoever tried to take away that right. :teehee

hahah......i would too!!!!

I would be pretty pissed off. If we spent money on our guns, they sure as hell better reimburse us when and if they take them away. I'd probably shoot the person who tried to take it away. Maybe just in the foot :).

I am not a big fan of guns and am very torn about keeping it in the house with little ones, however, I feel it is my right to protect myself by any means necessary. In my opinion you will NEVER remove the guns from the "wrong hands" and if a disaster were to break out...I would want to be the one holding the gun. I would at least have a chance. I doubt law enforcement or the government could protect me and/or in a timely fashion therefore it should be my right to protect myself.

I'd be pretty pissed! I have grown up with guns in the house and my grandparents hunted, my dad, my mom, my uncles, myself and my sisters, and my cousins... it's in my blood. I feel more comfortable with a gun in the house.

I would be thoroughly pissed off. Right to bear arms...what?

I guess for right now, it doesnt really go either way for me. But I own no guns and I dont really like them. But....in the future if I wanted to go buy one for protection I would want to be able to.

I've never lived in a country where people have a right to bear arms, so I really wouldn't mind. To be honest, I'd probably feel a little safer.

Honestly, it wouldnt bother me a bit. There is not now, nor will there ever be guns my house.

I come from a family of hunters and cops, I know how to handle a firearm and dh also is from a family of hunters and knows how to handle a firearm properly, we have some in our home put away where the kids can't get to them. I'd be pissed if that right was taken away from us. We need to be able to protect ourselves if some one broke into our house or if someone tried coming after us at the family property in southern Missouri.

I would be pissed too! Thats one of our constitutional rights! not sure if i spelled that right but oh well. its not right that they start taking away our rights, i understand that people use the rights in the wrong way, but punish those people. thats what the death penalty is for and jail time.

I have never owned a gun nor used one. I am indifferent. However, I can understand how one might feel that they are no longer able to defend their family if something happened.

Wouldn't bother me. I don't now or ever want guns in my house.

I think sometimes people get too caught up in the 'well, it's my constitutional right'. Yeah, well, you're a law-abiding citizen....what about those who are not so law abiding? How would you feel about them getting their hands on a gun?
I don't think guns serve a purpose, so banning them wouldn't bother me a bit.

Wouldn't bother me. I don't now or ever want guns in my house.

I think sometimes people get too caught up in the 'well, it's my constitutional right'. Yeah, well, you're a law-abiding citizen....what about those who are not so law abiding? How would you feel about them getting their hands on a gun?
I don't think guns serve a purpose, so banning them wouldn't bother me a bit.

That's how I feel about it. I don't get how people would want the right to own a weapon just because they've always had the right before.

Wouldn't bother me. I don't now or ever want guns in my house.

I think sometimes people get too caught up in the 'well, it's my constitutional right'. Yeah, well, you're a law-abiding citizen....what about those who are not so law abiding? How would you feel about them getting their hands on a gun?
I don't think guns serve a purpose, so banning them wouldn't bother me a bit.

but no matter what...if someone wants a gun, theyll find it. so taking away peoples rights to bear arms would only hurt the law abiding citizens. and if, for some reason, the govt. took my gun away and someone tried to break into my house...the cops won't get there fast enough to protect my family. so what then??...:no

That's how I feel about it. I don't get how people would want the right to own a weapon just because they've always had the right before.

but when youve always had one with you....to have it taken away, oh my...it's scary. my SO doesn't even like going places without something on him (he does....but he doesn't like it)

but no matter what...if someone wants a gun, theyll find it. so taking away peoples rights to bear arms would only hurt the law abiding citizens. and if, for some reason, the govt. took my gun away and someone tried to break into my house...the cops won't get there fast enough to protect my family. so what then??...:no

that is why i use my house alarm, have pepper spray in my nightstand and a baseball bat under my bed!

i have never understood how, if you are a safe person with guns in the house. how that helps any.... depending on where it's locked up, it's pretty much useless.

i dont think "freedom to bear arms" should be taken away. but i really do believe that "arms" needs to be redefined.

[QUOTE=Donna;509763]

i have never understood how, if you are a safe person with guns in the house. how that helps any.... depending on where it's locked up, it's pretty much useless.

QUOTE]

i've thought the same thing sometimes, but i'll tell ya what.....my dad can get his gun out of the case, load it and have it ready to go in about 30 seconds!!! hehe...he's pulled it on a couple people too....:lol

but why should they take the freedom of gun ownership from those who are law abiding citizens?..... Even if the right was taken away those "bad guys" would still be able to get ahold of them and do bad things. They still are able to go around the law and find loop holes...so yak now it would happen even more so if that ever happened.

but to answer the question I would feel violated.

hmmm.. I don't think that it would ever happen.. The government would lose too much money...

Next weekend is rifle opener for deer hunting in the beautiful state of Minnesota. The revenue brought into my state by hunters is astronomical! This year, 500,000 people are expected to purchace a deer tag.. at $49.00 a piece, well, you do the math... All that money goes to the MN DNR..

So the money raised from hunting in this state mostly goes to preserve wildlife.. Minnesota hunters fund almost all Department of Natural Resources habitat acquisition and wildlife research with their license fees and a federal excise tax on hunting equipment. So that includes sales tax on guns, ammo..

Add in sales tax on all the silly little accessories... like hand warmers, portable stands, just about anything that doesn't include clothing. MN doesn't tax clothing... Not to mention the out of towners who spring for motel rooms, bar tabs, gasoline, restraunts. Hunting is HUGE business in my area.. I have a Cabella's, a Gander Mountain and a Reed's store within 5 miles of my house..

Another benefit is population control... Ever hit a deer with your car? I hit two at once a while ago. My grandfather lost count after 20 in his lifetime. They cause major destruction to automobiles and it's a serious safety hazard to anyone on the highway. I had a friend who hit a deer on his motorcycle. The deer lived, but she didn't. Deer drive up the cost of our insurance premiums. Sometimes the population need to be trimmed down a bit for safety reasons..

Most wild animals don't pass away in comfort, sedated by veterinary medication. They usually die a violent, agonizing death. Though a hunter's bullet or arrow can cause a wild animal pain and trauma, such a death is no worse than the other ways wildlife perish. A deer not shot eventually will be killed by a car, predator, exposure, or starvation. An old, weakened pheasant doesn't die in its sleep. It gets caught by a hawk and eaten.

When the DNR confiscates illeagally taken deer, the meat is donated to the local food shelves. I've gotten venision there lots of times..

I can remember when I was little, growing up really poor on my father's military salary. We always had a deer hanging in our barn. Sure it was illegal for him to poach deer, but that was how we ate. We would have starved if it wasn't for that. I don't blame him a bit for cruising our 200 acres in a pickup truck in July with a loaded gun. He even took me with him a couple of times. It was how we survived, it was how we ate..

My house is planted in the middle of 40 acres of Minnesota wilderness. I shot a skunk that came into my yard last summer. Indeed, it was rabid, no doubt about it. You can tell when they are sick. I called the police to remove the carcass, because it was too dangerous for me to touch it.

I knew it was in the yard because little Jack was outside playing and ran in the house to tell me. If he would've been bitten.. well, I praise Our Lord that he wasn't..

When you live in the wilderness like I do, you never know what you're sharing your space with. Guns are one thing when you live in the inner city in an apartment complex, but when you're up here in the woods, it's not people that you need to be worried about.

Sorry for the long read....

i love you lindsay...!

I'd be pissed over the fact that one of our rights is being taken away. I don't like guns, but I still have the right to own one.

but no matter what...if someone wants a gun, theyll find it. so taking away peoples rights to bear arms would only hurt the law abiding citizens. and if, for some reason, the govt. took my gun away and someone tried to break into my house...the cops won't get there fast enough to protect my family. so what then??...:no

There are always other alternatives to using a gun...a gun isn't the ONLY solution.

There are always other alternatives to using a gun...a gun isn't the ONLY solution.

correct...but, say i'd use a knife on someone who broke into my house. soon enough, they'll be trying to take away my right to have a knife on me!!! no matter what...someone is gonna try and take something away

correct...but, say i'd use a knife on someone who broke into my house. soon enough, they'll be trying to take away my right to have a knife on me!!! no matter what...someone is gonna try and take something away

But look at all the countries where guns are banned. Gun related crimes and homicides in general are significantly reduced. Knives are still allowed, but statistically speaking, those countries are safer. I'm quite happy to give up any right to own a gun in exhange for a safer life.

I really don't understand the argument that people are making about not wanting to relinquish a right to bear arms because it's always been there. If people were so unwilling to change in the past, we'd still be treating headaches by drilling holes in the skull and punishing nagging wives by cutting out their tongues! The world moves forward for a reason.

i dont like guns and there will NEVER be one in my house. not even play ones for trent.

I'm not thrilled about having guns in the house, but we have 2. A .22 rifle and a .40 Ruger handgun. Though I'm not thrilled about them, I have fired them both, as have the kids.
I think sometimes people get too caught up in the 'well, it's my constitutional right'. Yeah, well, you're a law-abiding citizen....what about those who are not so law abiding? How would you feel about them getting their hands on a gun?
I don't think guns serve a purpose, so banning them wouldn't bother me a bit.

Yes, it is a constitutional right, and I would be pissed if it were taken away. If the right to bear arms were taken away, what would be next? The right to free speech? or the right to trial by jury? or maybe the right to not have your own property taken for public use without compensation?

I'm not thrilled about having guns in the house, but we have 2. A .22 rifle and a .40 Ruger handgun. Though I'm not thrilled about them, I have fired them both, as have the kids.


Yes, it is a constitutional right, and I would be pissed if it were taken away. If the right to bear arms were taken away, what would be next? The right to free speech? or the right to trial by jury? or maybe the right to not have your own property taken for public use without compensation?

yep :yes exactly

I'm not thrilled about having guns in the house, but we have 2. A .22 rifle and a .40 Ruger handgun. Though I'm not thrilled about them, I have fired them both, as have the kids.


Yes, it is a constitutional right, and I would be pissed if it were taken away. If the right to bear arms were taken away, what would be next? The right to free speech? or the right to trial by jury? or maybe the right to not have your own property taken for public use without compensation?

That's a proposterous notion! Gun laws were changed in the UK and various other EU countries so that people could no longer bear arms. We still have the right to a fair trial and to free speech (more so than the US, judging by other debates). I don't see that as a valid argument at all.

well the reason that it'd never happen is because they'd have to amend the constitution and well that isn't going to happen!

but i'd be royally pissed if someone said that i couldn't own a gun or anything else for that matter because of whatever stupid reason.

well the reason that it'd never happen is because they'd have to amend the constitution and well that isn't going to happen!

but i'd be royally pissed if someone said that i couldn't own a gun or anything else for that matter because of whatever stupid reason.

why couldnt it be done? it's been done plenty of times!

because since its in our bill of rights they have to amend the constitution which is damn near impossible to do. there have only been 26 amendments to the constitution in 200+ years and 10 of those were the bill of rights

because since its in our bill of rights they have to amend the constitution which is damn near impossible to do. there have only been 26 amendments to the constitution in 200+ years and 10 of those were the bill of rights

That doesn't mean it can't or won't be done. People didn't ever think integration would happen but it did. People didn't ever think women would have the right to vote but we do. Things change.

i'm aware things change but people in this country very much value their right to own a gun. that is evident from on here--there are people that say that they don't want a gun and don't like them but they wouldn't want that right taken away.

i'm not saying that this could never change i just don't see it happening in awhile.

i'm aware things change but people in this country very much value their right to own a gun. that is evident from on here--there are people that say that they don't want a gun and don't like them but they wouldn't want that right taken away.

i'm not saying that this could never change i just don't see it happening in awhile.

Ok, but the question asked was what would you do and I really wouldn't do anything at all - I'd see it as a good thing. I don't see why people would not want to change things just because they see it as a change. The notion seems quite ignorant to me.

Ok, but the question asked was what would you do and I really wouldn't do anything at all - I'd see it as a good thing. I don't see why people would not want to change things just because they see it as a change. The notion seems quite ignorant to me.

I agree. Maybe the criminals may still be able to get thier hands on them. But guess what? The accidental shootings would end. There would be no more kids getting their hands on parents guns cause they werent put away properly. I wouldnt have to worry about my kids at school, because one of thier school mates got their hands on mommy or daddy's gun.

That's a proposterous notion! Gun laws were changed in the UK and various other EU countries so that people could no longer bear arms. We still have the right to a fair trial and to free speech (more so than the US, judging by other debates). I don't see that as a valid argument at all.

but we're not in the UK...we're in America. I've been to London, it was amazing...but things are different in both countries. There are things in America that are more important to us than certain things are in the UK. The majority of us want guns...big deal?!?!?! Our drinking age is different than yours....and plenty of people could make a case for that saying 18 is to young to drink (even tho i disagree).....all im saying is that when thinking about this debate...you have to step out of ur comfort zone for a while and think about how it is in America....NOT the UK.

and if at all possible, id like to see where you got ur information that countries are safer when the guns are taken away. cause i've been told the complete opposite by college professors...not saying that they're always right...but, they don't have a Phd for nothin.

oh....and another thing. with the free speech in the UK. when i went to london....i was told to not say ANYTHING bad about the Queen Mum. and it was so hard for me to keep my mouth shut, cause i dispise the woman. maybe i got wrong information (it came from our tour guide that grew up in London...she was 60)....but that doesn't sounds like Free Speech to me.

brentsgirl... :)

:D

It would phase me in the least. I do not keep guns in my home, so it would be nothing new to me. DB on the other hand would probably freak. He has several that he keeps at a friend's house..

oh....and another thing. with the free speech in the UK. when i went to london....i was told to not say ANYTHING bad about the Queen Mum. and it was so hard for me to keep my mouth shut, cause i dispise the woman. maybe i got wrong information (it came from our tour guide that grew up in London...she was 60)....but that doesn't sounds like Free Speech to me.

I don't know where you heard that but it's complete bollocks.

but we're not in the UK...we're in America. I've been to London, it was amazing...but things are different in both countries. There are things in America that are more important to us than certain things are in the UK. The majority of us want guns...big deal?!?!?! Our drinking age is different than yours....and plenty of people could make a case for that saying 18 is to young to drink (even tho i disagree).....all im saying is that when thinking about this debate...you have to step out of ur comfort zone for a while and think about how it is in America....NOT the UK.

and if at all possible, id like to see where you got ur information that countries are safer when the guns are taken away. cause i've been told the complete opposite by college professors...not saying that they're always right...but, they don't have a Phd for nothin.

Honey, I'm on my 2nd PhD - I have more letters after my name than in it. I generally know what I'm talking about. :P

If you want the stats, I listed them in the other debate about guns. I could throw more scientific journals and statistical reports your way but I suggest you read the ones already listed first. I was just trying to get you to think outside of that little box of yours. There are differences in the UK, some are for the better and others not so much. Our gun laws make ours statistically a safer country than yours. I would very much like to know where your college professors got their information from.

i got this from the CDC website.... this is why i believe things should be changed! the numbers for American children to me are NOT acceptable!!! none of the numbers are...... but look at OUR numbers compared to children where thier are stricted gun laws.

American children are more at risk from firearms than the children of any other industrialized nation. In one year, firearms killed no children in Japan, 19 in Great Britain, 57 in Germany, 109 in France, 153 in Canada, and 5,285 in the United States. (Centers for Disease Control)

Honey, I'm on my 2nd PhD - I have more letters after my name than in it. I generally know what I'm talking about. :P

If you want the stats, I listed them in the other debate about guns. I could throw more scientific journals and statistical reports your way but I suggest you read the ones already listed first. I was just trying to get you to think outside of that little box of yours. There are differences in the UK, some are for the better and others not so much. Our gun laws make ours statistically a safer country than yours. I would very much like to know where your college professors got their information from.

I never said you didn't know what you're talking about...

...and for another thing, i've been nothing but nice during the entire debate, cause after all, it's nothing more than that; it's just a debate....so you're comment of "...that little box of yours"...WAS NOT needed. How in the hell do you know that im in a "little box"?!?!?! for all you know...my box could be huge...

...and im from the mid-west. good luck trying to get me to think that taking away our right to bear arms is a good idea..

I never said you didn't know what you're talking about...

...and for another thing, i've been nothing but nice during the entire debate, cause after all, it's nothing more than that; it's just a debate....so you're comment of "...that little box of yours"...WAS NOT needed. How in the hell do you know that im in a "little box"?!?!?! for all you know...my box could be huge...

...and im from the mid-west. good luck trying to get me to think that taking away our right to bear arms is a good idea..

It was your comment that offended me in the first place, resulting in my retaliation. If you want any more of a response, you can pm me. I don't doubt your closed-mindedness one bit, whether or not you're from the Mid-West - I'm not trying to change your opinion. I'm just giving reasons for mine, and challenging your point of view and asking for the sources your basing your facts on. That's what a debate's about. If you target another one of your supercilious comments my way, I will retaliate again and I may not be so nice- I'm in a particularly vitriolic mood today.

y'all are both entitled to your opinions and probably neither of y'all will change your opinions but possibly her experience in London shaped her opinions. perhaps her experiences have tainted her opinion just like your heritage and upbringing have tainted yours. i don't think its right to tell anyone they are in a little box. if someone wants to be narrow-minded in any regard (race, gender, certain professions) than its their RIGHT!!!! we may not agree but it is their right to be in a "box" or any other object. i wasn't going to say anything but why don't we just agree to disagree.

i got this from the CDC website.... this is why i believe things should be changed! the numbers for American children to me are NOT acceptable!!! none of the numbers are...... but look at OUR numbers compared to children where thier are stricted gun laws.
5,285 in the United States

Well...that number is amazing..I knew that it was high, but not that high. I personally knew/know 2 people who were affected in a very sad way by guns in the house...one lost their life(9 yrs old) and the other who is now 34 has the mentality of a child.My family was also DEEPLY affected by guns twice...my dad killed himslef with one when I was 5 and my uncle was murdered with one by his roommate while he slept. But that is beside the point.
I am not for, nor am I against it...whether I choose to have a gun in my house will be my personal decision and will not be because I have that right. We are a pretty violent nation...I think that our crime rate resounds loudly on that matter. If we do loose our right to bear arms I can honestly see where we will become more violent than we already are.Yes, it has worked very well in other countries...but I see much more violence amongst ourselves through out history than most of these other countries. I, personally have had enough of the viloence....if it could be proven that our nation would be a better place without the right to bear arms then I say go for it...but until then I will remain neutral.

If taking our guns away is about keeping us safe, I think there are a lot more other things I'd like to see them concentrate on before the gun issue.

From a quick search- "In 1999, 5,749 teens died of injuries caused by motor vehicle crashes. On average, that's one teen death on the nation's roadways every 91 minutes. The risk for motor vehicle crashes is higher among 16- to 19-year-olds than any other age group. In fact, per mile driven, a 16-year-old driver is seven times more likely to crash than a driver 25 to 29 years old." So should we ban our teens from driving until they are adults?

What about all the second hand smoke that parents are passing onto their children and causing illness for them? I would like to see that banned before trying to take our rights away to bear arms.

Well...that number is amazing..I knew that it was high, but not that high. I personally knew/know 2 people who were affected in a very sad way by guns in the house...one lost their life(9 yrs old) and the other who is now 34 has the mentality of a child.My family was also DEEPLY affected by guns twice...my dad killed himslef with one when I was 5 and my uncle was murdered with one by his roommate while he slept. But that is beside the point.
I am not for, nor am I against it...whether I choose to have a gun in my house will be my personal decision and will not be because I have that right. We are a pretty violent nation...I think that our crime rate resounds loudly on that matter. If we do loose our right to bear arms I can honestly see where we will become more violent than we already are.Yes, it has worked very well in other countries...but I see much more violence amongst ourselves through out history than most of these other countries. I, personally have had enough of the viloence....if it could be proven that our nation would be a better place without the right to bear arms then I say go for it...but until then I will remain neutral.

Really? How many civil wars have you had compared with the UK? Hell, Germany had the Berlin wall up to divide the country in two!

I do agree that the choice to own a gun should be based on a personal decision and not because you're allowed to.

Really? How many civil wars have you had compared with the UK? Hell, Germany had the Berlin wall up to divide the country in two!

I do agree that the choice to own a gun should be based on a personal decision and not because you're allowed to.


I wasn't just talking in the terms of war...I was talking in general...plus, if you break down some of the states(wow, Texas alone had a GREAT deal) here and look at some of the little revolutions that were had...we had a hell of a lot! I wanted to show how violent we are in general here...and this nation is pretty freaking violent

I wasn't just talking in the terms of war...I was talking in general...plus, if you break down some of the states(wow, Texas alone had a GREAT deal) here and look at some of the little revolutions that were had...we had a hell of a lot! I wanted to show how violent we are in general here...and this nation is pretty freaking violent

That's fair enough :lol But why retain the right to own a gun just because you're a violent nation anyway? Surely it would decrease the number of accidental deaths?

That's fair enough :lol But why retain the right to own a gun just because you're a violent nation anyway? Surely it would decrease the number of accidental deaths?


Oh no...don't get me wrong..I am neither for or against the right to bear arms..just reading or hearing the news here on a daily basis leads me to believe that if the right was taken away that there would be a good sized revolt and that the criminals would work harder to get the guns...kwim...but like I said, if they could say that the situation could be controlled then I say ok!!:D Shoot..I personally don't like guns..lost one to many from them, I just would like to see the violence here reduced and if getting rid of the right works then do it, but if it doesn't and can escalate things then I say keep it.

And I have to say that it is nice debating with ya Sonia because you have some very intelligent and thought provoking remarks!!:yes :D

Oh no...don't get me wrong..I am neither for or against the right to bear arms..just reading or hearing the news here on a daily basis leads me to believe that if the right was taken away that there would be a good sized revolt and that the criminals would work harder to get the guns...kwim...but like I said, if they could say that the situation could be controlled then I say ok!!:D Shoot..I personally don't like guns..lost one to many from them, I just would like to see the violence here reduced and if getting rid of the right works then do it, but if it doesn't and can escalate things then I say keep it.

And I have to say that it is nice debating with ya Sonia because you have some very intelligent and thought provoking remarks!!:yes :D

Thank you hun :)

I understand what you're saying - I'm sure there would be a revolt if guns were taken away. But big changes start with a single step, and the government could start with amending the gun laws to add more restrictions.

Thank you hun :)

I understand what you're saying - I'm sure there would be a revolt if guns were taken away. But big changes start with a single step, and the government could start with amending the gun laws to add more restrictions.

Now that I totally agree with!!!:D Tighter laws and maybe some amendmants!!!:yes

i agree with tighter laws but in NOW WAY do i believe in completely taking away guns. people use them for recreation (hunting, going to the range--i like going to the range but its expensive), and collection my grandfather-in-law collects them

i agree with tighter laws but in NOW WAY do i believe in completely taking away guns. people use them for recreation (hunting, going to the range--i like going to the range but its expensive), and collection my grandfather-in-law collects them

In the UK guns aren't completely banned - there are extremely tight restrictions so that most people can't obtain them but certain people were allowed them for hunting. However, recently hunting has been banned so that it no longer the case. As I said, little steps.

i want to get my concealed once i turn 21 just because i'd feel safer. i guess it stems from me going to a university in the ghetto (i've explained why i'm attending) and i do feel scared for my safety if i have to walk alone at night.

they shouldn't ever be banned but i've stated reasons for that before and such so...i'm not going into it again lol

I think ANY TYPE hunting should be banned too, but that's another show, LOL

the reason hunting is allowed is because during deer hunting season there is such a surplus of deer that it would be detrimental to the environment and to drivers and homeowners if they were allowed to stay at the soaring populations that they have in the fall after the babies are born. hunting season for deer just started

i think shooting exotic animals and such is wrong though.

I still think it should be banned :lol

the reason hunting is allowed is because during deer hunting season there is such a surplus of deer that it would be detrimental to the environment and to drivers and homeowners if they were allowed to stay at the soaring populations that they have in the fall after the babies are born. hunting season for deer just started

i think shooting exotic animals and such is wrong though.

There are other ways of culling a population - hunting for sport doesn't have to be one of them.

for all you know...my box could be huge...

LOL!!! :D :D :D I won't comment at that, you fruitcake...

But why retain the right to own a gun just because you're a violent nation anyway? Surely it would decrease the number of accidental deaths?

I think that's it's kinda sad how the rest of the world view us as a buch of trigger happy cowboys... We get customers from all over the world in our company. Sometimes they have to stay for weeks. So what do we do for PR? When the guys come visit from Japan, well, we take them out shooting. They LURVE it. They take all kinds of pictures of each other holding shotguns, wearing cowboy hats.

i want to get my concealed once i turn 21 just because i'd feel safer. .

I have had mine for 4 years. And I'll tell you what.. When I travel to the metro area for work, and I have to go to a cash machine???? I strap in on OUTSIDE of my clothes. You should see the way that people back up, and get out of my way when I withdraw cash at the ATM. That's how it should be.

I think ANY TYPE hunting should be banned too, but that's another show, LOL

OK, WHY????? Please explain to me why.

the reason hunting is allowed is because during deer hunting season there is such a surplus of deer that it would be detrimental to the environment and to drivers and homeowners if they were allowed to stay at the soaring populations that they have in the fall after the babies are born. hunting season for deer just started. I think shooting exotic animals and such is wrong though.
I agree with that 100%.. It would cause more damage then most people can fathom if populations of some species of animals were left unchecked in North America..

I still think it should be banned :lol
Seriously.. Why?

There are other ways of culling a population - hunting for sport doesn't have to be one of them.
Like how? Please suggest some alternatives to me, I'm very curious..

I think that's it's kinda sad how the rest of the world view us as a buch of trigger happy cowboys... We get customers from all over the world in our company. Sometimes they have to stay for weeks. So what do we do for PR? When the guys come visit from Japan, well, we take them out shooting. They LURVE it. They take all kinds of pictures of each other holding shotguns, wearing cowboy hats.


If you're going to quote me or reply to my quote, please do so in the context that it was written.

Like how? Please suggest some alternatives to me, I'm very curious..

This is going off-topic, but here you go:

Hunting Myths -

1. Hunting is a right
Wrong.
Hunting is a privilege. ALL states recognize hunting as a privilege granted to certain individuals... not a right. Neither the federal nor any state constitution recognize hunting as a right. From the Illinois hunter education manual, page 5:

"Privileges are extra benefits given to a person or group. They may be given only to people who meet certain conditions. Hunting is an example of a privilege." ALL states teach in their hunter education classes that hunting is a privilege.

2. Hunters control animal populations


Wrong.
Hunters manipulate animal populations for their own benefit.

Whitetail deer have been manipulated to the point of overpopulation in some areas. From Mr. DuBrock, Director of Wildlife, Pennsylvania Game Comission:

"The increase in deer in Pennsylvania is a direct result of hunting practices which have routinely killed large number of bucks, thus removing a large number of animals from the herd and causing the compensatory rebound. Furthermore, such hunting practices, by constantly killing males while leaving females alive, have upset the natural 1:1 female to male ratio to at least 5 females to every 1 male." As rural areas have outgrown the ability to support a healthy deer herd, the animals have expanded into more populated areas and are now common in suburbs. This has resulted in a dramatic increase in auto/deer accidents, damage to property, and starvation of animals. Hunters actually cause overpopulation and the degradation of the deer herd in general by seeking to kill antlered bucks with no regard for the herd in general. This results in skewed sex ratios, as high as 25 females to one male in some areas. Since deer are polygamous, the herd multiplies while the hunting kill increases. From the 1998-99 Kentucky Hunting Regulations Manual, page 12:

"In 1976, the first year for mandatory check in, Kentucky recored 3,476 harvested deer. Herd growth accelerated in the 1980's. A two-deer limit was begun in 1987. By 1989 the quality of the deer left much to be desired. Lots of deer were being killed, but they were small with small racks [antlers]. Hunters blamed malnutrition, disease or poor genetics, but the real reason was lack of age. Kentucky had lots of healthy deer with good genetics, but they were young. The number of deer living long enough to reach their rpime was very small. 22% of the bucks were two years or older, less than 6% were three years old. Biologists determined that the quality of the deer herd would improve if more of the herd lived longer. Genetically superior bucks would naturally out-compete their unfit rivals." THAT is what hunting does to deer.

What about other animals? There are 1145 species of mammals and birds in North America. 141 are classified as game animals. Of the remaining, almost 90% of the species, NONE are overpoulated and starving. Left to their own, animal populations will stabilize and meet the carrying capacity of their habitat.

Among game animals, populations are declining. And have been for decades. Hunters stock millions of pheasants, quail, ducks, foxes, raccoons, and turkeys each year on private property expressly for hunting. Not to mention the breeding of exotics for hunting in enclosures. Why is this necessary? The US Fish and Wildlife Service has steadily reduced daily limits of ducks and geese in the past 20 years. Duck limits are 1/3 to 1/10 what they were in the early to mid-1980s. The goose quotas for 1998 are reduced as much as 50% from 1997. This is partially due to reduced populations and partially due to hunter's lack of reporting kills under the federal H.I.P.S. program.

Hunters disdain the competition of natural predators. Most states allow year round killing of fox, coyotes, raccoons and even mountain lions in some cases. Where year round hunting is not allowed, seasons are long and bag limits large or unlimited. In the past, bounties were paid on these animals. As late as 1980, Michigan paid $5 for a male coyote, $20 for a female.

At the same time that hunters say they "control" or "reduce overpopulation" they will piont out that there are more deer than when the Pilgrims came in 1620. True enough. But gone are the bison, the wolves, the fox, the gray goose, the elk (once widespread in the east), the moose, the passenger pigeon, the prairie chicken, the prairie dog, the pronghorn antelope, the grouse and ducks that blackened the skies with their numbers. All have been eliminated by the hunter. To replace them we have an overabundance of deer, at the behest of game departemnts in search of dollars, immature herds and turkeys stocked in areas that are not native driving out native populations of birds.

94% of the population (non-hunters) have surrendered to the 6% of hunters who have manipulated our animals to their benefit. It is time this stops.

3. Hunters contribute to wildlife


Wrong.
Hunters contribute to hunting. Hunters contribute money to hunting in various ways, let's examine them.

Hunting licenses and state stamps. These are sold and the money collected at the state level. The states use 71% of the funds generated by these sources to enforce the hunting regulations of the states (Iowa DNR studies). The remainder are used to improve and maintain state lands for hunting use. Cleaning up after the hunting season, providing parking areas, and even stocking game on state lands for hunters to kill. Illinois stocks pheasants on 8 state parks for hunter's exclusive use as targets. The parks are closed to other uses during the hunting season. Ed Rodniak, manager of the Chain O' Lakes State Park in Lake Co., IL states that carryover (survival) of the birds is "0 %". Those that are not killed by hunters die of exposure to the elements. These are pen raised, hand fed birds.

These fees, then, become reimbursement to the states for regulating and catering to the hunters. It is not "for the wildlife".

Federal stamps. These are issued by the US Fish & Wildlife Service. The money is collected and redistributed to the states, after "an expensive night on the town in Washimgton, DC". After "costs", the states are returned approximately 43% of the funds for "wetland development" and law enforcement. Violation of migratory bird hunting rules is a federal offense, and fines are paid to the federal government, yet the federal government provides no law enforcement. This is done by the states. These funds are used to reimburse the states for the costs of enforcing federal laws with state employees. Wetland projects must be approved in advance, and the project must benefit migratory waterfowl or bird species, these species are, in turn, hunted. No non-game species directly recieve any benefit of these funds.

The Pittman-Robertson Tax. This began in 1937 as a 10% federal excise tax on the sale of rifles, shotguns, and ammunition for them. During WW2, the tax was raised to 11% and has remained at that level. In 1970 the fund was expanded to include handguns, reloading (ammunition) components, boats, outboard motors and fishing equipment. Fisherman and target shooters objected. Only 16% of America's firearms owners are hunters, and less than 10% of fisherman and boaters hunt. They objected to providing funds for hunters. So the act was modified to include lake and river improvement for boat access, public shooting range development, and hunter and boating education classes.

These funds are distributed to states based on a formula of state size (square miles of area) and number of hunting licenses sold. Funds "for wildlife" must be used to benefit huntable species or land open for hunting. When Senator Boxer (D. CA) introduced the "Desert Protection Act", which would have closed hunting on 2 million acres of California desert, the USFWS protested that doing so would make the land ineligible to receive Pitman-Robertson funds. Again the hunters assure the use of the money for their direct benefit.

So, what kind of projects do we get for the generous contributions of hunters? Stocking turkeys where they have never existed before, trading turkeys from Texas to Florida for alligators, to restore the hunter decimated populations of the animals, attempts to introduce elk to the lower penninsula of Michigan for hunting. Attempts to introduce elk to Kentucky. Why? Simple. Hunting has become a tourist industry, and the game departments are the innkeepers of that industry. Kentucky does not want Kentuckians that wish to hunt elk going to Montana or Colorado, not when the federal government will pay to stock the elk in Kentucky. Florida needed turkeys to restore it's decimated population of the native osceola species. Unfortunately Osceola turkeys lived only in Florida. No problem. Trade some alligators to Texas gator hunters for the Rio Grande species of turkey native to Texas. Thus allowing Texans to hunt gators at home and sealing the fate of the few remaining Osceola turkeys. But hey, a turkey is a turkey, and now Florida hunters can kill a turkey right at home.

At the same time states play games to increase their "piece of the pie". Many states used to allow persons under 16 yrs. old, over 65 yrs. old, and landowners to hunt without licenses. Not any more. Now they must have a license, or permit, but they may be charged only a nominal fee for this. Some as low a 50 cents. BUT... it is a license sale, and therefore increases that state's funds... at the expense of another state.

What these funds have done is to make the government game departments, charged with the resources that belong to everyone, the handmaidens of the hunters. We can be assured to have an overabundance of targets for hunters, but no real balance of nature. No balance was ever intended.

4. Alternatives to hunting

"There are no practical alternatives to hunting", we are told. "Hunting reduces animal populations and generates revenue. It does not 'cost' anything." Well, let's look at this myth.

Currently the only wild animals in a condition of "overpopulation" (too many animals for the habitat) are whitetailed deer, and then only in isolated areas. Whitetails are NOT overpopulated in the vast majority of their range. Whitetailed deer represent less than 2% of the animals killed by hunters each year, yet are always used as the excuse for all hunting. Even bird hunters use whitetails as their excuse while they hunt pen raised, stocked birds. Many common game birds are not even native to North America, but were imported for hunting. Ringnecked pheasant (China), Hungarian, or gray partridge (central Europe) and chuckar (central Europe to Asia) are good examples.

There are natural, inexpensive alternatives to hunting. Stopping the war on natural predators is one way. Coyotes, wolves, mountain lions, foxes, eagles, hawks, owls and raccoons have been persecuted for centuries. STOP!!!!!!!! These animals are valuable predators and scavengers. They are natural, and part of nature's plan for balance. The habitat is not complete without them. In addition to providing year 'round population control of prey species, they benefit the herd by naturally selecting weak and inferior animals as food. They are simply easier to prey upon. After all, it is not necessary for a deer to be stronger or smarter than a wolf or coyote.... he need only be stronger, or smarter, than another deer.

In urban and suburban areas where confined population cells of whitetails are a problem, contraception is a viable alternative. Dr. Gary Killian of Penn State University has developed an oral contraceptive for deer and other animals. The drug is "selective" and only affects female deer. Any other animals eating the drug laced food are not affected. It is impossible for the animals to "overdose" on the drug, and as little as one bale of treated hay can effectively protect the female deer in an area as large as one square mile. The drug has an effective action of one year. So populations can be monitored and controlled. Treatments can be delivered by helicopter or by vehicle. At Angel Island in California the deer herd was reduced from 150 animals to 60 animals. At Point Reyes National Seashore the Tule elk herd was reduced from 212 to 70 animals. Natural predators and natural death reduced the herd, and birth control prevented the "rebound" effect so often seen with hunting.

Why aren't more agencies using it? Because hunters, who claim to love wildlife and only hunt for the good of the wildlife, do not believe in population control unless it means they get to kill something. Why wouldn't they support a reduction in deer herds, since that is what they claim to be doing? The game departments, always the handmaidens of hunters, use "studies" paid for by hunters to conclude that contraception is not viable.

Until we break the stranglehold the hunters have on game departments and "wildlife biologists", they will always conclude hunting is the best alternative. Educating the non-hunting public to these facts is the best way to do this.

zelda...i love how you always have resources :lol

the fact is hunting won't be outlawed because it is a HUGE source of revenue for the states and fed. gov't KWIM?

people from all around the world come and purchase guns made in the U.S. and vice versa. its a big market and esp. in the U.S. i think that it would turn into a huge black market operation and at least now we can tax the sale and purchase of guns and ammo and all hunting/gun accessories

If you're going to quote me or reply to my quote, please do so in the context that it was written.

Dude, I was agreeing with you... Other's do view American society as a violent nation. I was trying to say that I've seen firsthand the culture shock that others experience here... And I can understand why some people from other countries get a little "blown away" -so to speak- when they visit us and see our gun culture...

This is going off-topic, but here you go:

1. Hunting is a right
Wrong.
Hunting is a privilege. ALL states recognize hunting as a privilege granted to certain individuals... not a right. Neither the federal nor any state constitution recognize hunting as a right. From the Illinois hunter education manual, page 5:

"Privileges are extra benefits given to a person or group. They may be given only to people who meet certain conditions. Hunting is an example of a privilege." ALL states teach in their hunter education classes that hunting is a privilege..

I'm in total agreement with that... 200%.. It is absolutely a privilege granted. Currently in MN, we have laws forbidding firearm possesion to convicted felons. That's how it should be!!!!

There's also another law that denies hunting and fishing lisences to non-custodial parents who are more then 3 months behind on child support payments. If a person can afford to buy a hunting lisence, they can afford to pay their child support.

Could you please provide the URL to the link of that copy/paste? I'd like to check out that website....

I'm in total agreement with that... 200%.. It is absolutely a privilege granted. Currently in MN, we have laws forbidding firearm possesion to convicted felons. That's how it should be!!!!

There's also another law that denies hunting and fishing lisences to non-custodial parents who are more then 3 months behind on child support payments. If a person can afford to buy a hunting lisence, they can afford to pay their child support.

Could you please provide the URL to the link of that copy/paste? I'd like to check out that website....


that's the way it should be.

Birth control for deer?

It's a nice idea, but it's unreasonable.. It would require daily baiting and strict hormonal control. What if bunnies and squirrels ate the bait? How would you know what deer were medicated and which ones weren't? How could you guarantee that the same deer would come back to the treated bait everyday? How would the drug be regulated per deer? What would happen if one deer came back to the bait and ate it all? Would they overdose on hormones?

It a good idea, if it were possible.. They would be dealing with wild animals that aren't predictable.. I could see if they wanted to give birth control to one specific doe in one area, but statewide? It's an impossibility... The Department of Natural Resources agrees with me..

http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/publications/fwt/1995/Deercont.pdf#search='deer%20contraception%20myths'

I can't respond to all the threads i want to so here is my 2 cents.

I don't see the point of personally having a gun. I've lived in the city, i've walked on and off the subway in the Bronx without a gun. Do you know why people back away when you have a gun? Because you act confident. No one was going to mess with me because i walked like i could seriously kick some ass. If someone was going to attack me, I would have been surprised and wouldn't have been able to get to my gun anyway. I believe it's the same thing in a house. I know my house isn't big enough for there to be an intruder and me to get up (without making a noise) and get a gun before he's up the stairs in my face.

I don't think having guns in anyway compares to free speech. Last I know, my flagrant comments have made someone physically bleed. Things like knives wouldn't be banned because (a) we use them every day in the kitchen and (b) it takes skill to hurl a knife at someone, if you stab them you have to be close. with guns someone doesn't have to be attacking you or close to you for you to kill them with it.

we use them every day in the kitchen .

I use my gun, not quite everyday in the kitchen, but at least once a week in the backyard.

Great post,tatocup!!! I hope I didn't misquote you....

Well this isn't a hunting thread so I'm not gonna get into it that much, but you wanan know why? Because I don't believe in killing animals for pleasure. The reproduction of any animal is what nature intended, why should animals like deer have to pay for mankind has done? Its not their fault that man has built right into THEIR homes. I don't feel that animals should conform to mankind, mankind should conform to them. The fact is that hunting is a sport, NOT a right. Anyway, I will NEVER change my mind about hunting. Unless somehow we were all transported back to the stoneages where we actually HAD to hunt to eat and survive

y'all are both entitled to your opinions and probably neither of y'all will change your opinions but possibly her experience in London shaped her opinions. perhaps her experiences have tainted her opinion just like your heritage and upbringing have tainted yours. i don't think its right to tell anyone they are in a little box. if someone wants to be narrow-minded in any regard (race, gender, certain professions) than its their RIGHT!!!! we may not agree but it is their right to be in a "box" or any other object. i wasn't going to say anything but why don't we just agree to disagree.

i think i love you!!!! hehe....you took the words right out of my mouth!

Well this isn't a hunting thread so I'm not gonna get into it that much, but you wanan know why? Because I don't believe in killing animals for pleasure. The reproduction of any animal is what nature intended, why should animals like deer have to pay for mankind has done? Its not their fault that man has built right into THEIR homes. I don't feel that animals should conform to mankind, mankind should conform to them. The fact is that hunting is a sport, NOT a right. Anyway, I will NEVER change my mind about hunting. Unless somehow we were all transported back to the stoneages where we actually HAD to hunt to eat and survive

but that's the thing....some people need that meat that they get from deer. i know that right now my parents deep freezer is filled with deer meat that from a 6 point buck that my dad shot this season. in no way, shape, or form am i trying to change your views...all im saying is that this..for some people...is the only way of life. that's how it was when people first came to america...and that's how it'll always be.

and i can understand why you dont believe in killing animals for pleasure. i was a vegaterian for 9 months....but i went back "to the other side" (lol) because the way we got our meat was humanitarian. we didn't torture animals...and when you're hunting, you're not torturing. you shot, they're dead...you take them home. simple as that. now..if you're a bad shot...that's another thing!!! hehe....but honestly, i don't think that happens to often. hell, i got my first dear when i was in 6th grade. a lil 6 pointer...he was so cute!!! hehe..and yummy too!!:lmao

I use my gun, not quite everyday in the kitchen, but at least once a week in the backyard.

Great post,tatocup!!! I hope I didn't misquote you....

I'm surprised you could read that, my english was terrible! ha... anyway, you use your gun everyday, but you don't cut vegetables with it! (or do you?) :rofl

i'm not okay with someone going out to hunt just to shoot something. if you are going to shoot it and then bring it home and use the parts...all of the viable parts than more power to you. if you are going to just hunt to shoot something then yeah that's wrong

You know, I can really see your point and I didn't really think about that. There ARE some people that kill for their liveleyhood. They probably respect the animal they shoot very much because that animal will help feed their family. And I can actually see that purpose of hunting as something reasonable, not for pleasure and not for sport. I honestly feel that animals also have souls and feelings and have as much right to live. But I do know realistically in life and on this planet, there is a food chain, and animals kill to eat all the time. But they kill out of need not just to kill. That is where I have the BIG problem. Killing an innocent animal for the 'pleasure' of it. Killing it just to put their head on a mantle or show the world how big and manly their balls are :rollseyes. THAT is what pisses me off. But I can totally see your point.

I said this before...

Most wild animals don't pass away in comfort, sedated by veterinary medication. They usually die a violent, agonizing death. Though a hunter's bullet or arrow can cause a wild animal pain and trauma, such a death is no worse than the other ways wildlife perish. A deer not shot eventually will be killed by a car, predator, exposure, or starvation. An old, weakened pheasant doesn't die in its sleep. It gets caught by a hawk and eaten.

When the DNR confiscates illeagally taken deer, the meat is donated to the local food shelves. I've gotten venision there lots of times..

I can remember when I was little, growing up really poor on my father's military salary. We always had a deer hanging in our barn. Sure it was illegal for him to poach deer, but that was how we ate. We would have starved if it wasn't for that. I don't blame him a bit for cruising our 200 acres in a pickup truck in July with a loaded gun. He even took me with him a couple of times. It was how we survived, it was how we ate..

I think it's fine to hunt for food or other reasonable uses. I'm not a vegetarian, and i've eaten game meat, so i'd be a little hypocritical to think that. but i do agree, that killing to stuff it, mantle it, leave it or anything else that makes it's death completely useless is wrong.

sorry ladies, against popular opinion...i've never seen a gun & don't care to. though i understand the "rights"...i really dont' knwo how to answer this cause, like i said, i've never been around a gun. :shrug

You know that even you stuff and mount big game, the meat gets taken out for consumption?? They just use the skin. Fish too... Most mounted fish aren't really fish, they're plaster casts of the original..

All the big orange boxes are outside of our game registration stations this weekend. They are drop boxes for "Hides for Habitat". When the deer shot are skun, the hunters dispose of the hides in these boxes and they made into mittens and stuff. Most leather clothing sold in stores in the area are made from donated hides..

It's a good program, and it helps to utilize waste...Not to mention a smelly hide in the landfill...

that's the niftest thing i've ever heard!! i might have to bring that up to my dad...i don't think we have anything like that around here.

I don't care for guns, and don't feel that safe around them.

But I'd be really pissed off if they took that right away from me

I would be left thinking, "what right would they take away next???"

I don't care for guns, and don't feel that safe around them.

But I'd be really pissed off if they took that right away from me

I would be left thinking, "what right would they take away next???"

I really don't understand that line of reasoning. It just doesn't make sense to me. English people used to have the right to shoot a Welsh person with a bow and arrow if they were seen within the city walls of Chester after midnight. That right was taken away from me a while ago but I don't see a problem with it because it makes my country a safer place. :dunno I just don't understand why people who don't particularly like guns would be so angry if they were taken away. There just doesn't seem to be any reasoning involved.

i would be pissed if they tried to take away my right to own a gun. it is my right to be able to defend myself and my family...hell i'd probably shoot whoever tried to take away that right. :teehee

Now THAT is the Texas spirit!!!!! :agree I would be pissed and shoot anybody who dare try to take my gun away from me. It was a right our founding fathers gave to us, I don't think it should be messed with.

I really don't understand that line of reasoning. It just doesn't make sense to me. English people used to have the right to shoot a Welsh person with a bow and arrow if they were seen within the city walls of Chester after midnight. That right was taken away from me a while ago but I don't see a problem with it because it makes my country a safer place. :dunno I just don't understand why people who don't particularly like guns would be so angry if they were taken away. There just doesn't seem to be any reasoning involved.

ok - 2 comments.

1. was that a recent take away? like 5 years ago someone could get shot with an arrow? :teehee that's funny to me.

2. I agree, I just don't see how having a gun is the same as other rights. You have lots of restricted rights. you don't have the right to rob or assault or kill someone - why aren't you mad about that one? if i want to kick someone's ass, i should be able to, right? that doesn't make sense.

ok - 2 comments.

1. was that a recent take away? like 5 years ago someone could get shot with an arrow? :teehee that's funny to me.

2. I agree, I just don't see how having a gun is the same as other rights. You have lots of restricted rights. you don't have the right to rob or assault or kill someone - why aren't you mad about that one? if i want to kick someone's ass, i should be able to, right? that doesn't make sense.

Actually the law's still there - it's still legally viable to shoot a Welshman with a bow and arrow if he's caught within Chester city limits after midnight. The right was taken away through mensrea - the fact that murder itself is against the law. This is a moot point, however.

I do agree with your second point. People should not be angry just because a right to perform a particular task is taken away, especially if the removal of that right results in a safer environment for everyone. (and what would anyone use a gun for, if not to kill or hurt something or someone?)