• If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership  The benefits pay for the membership many times over.

NYT: I Hunt, but the N.R.A. Isn’t for Me

Victim mindset, victim mentality. A lot of people own cars but are not members of AAA. That doesn't mean that they don't think that AAA isn't a good organization, mostly it means that they don't think about AAA at all. It's the same with the NRA, a lot of people who would join if they thought about it, just don't think about it.

I don't have a NYT log in, so I can't get back into the article, but I read enough to know that she's not representative of most hunters, shooters, gun owners, or women. She's a shill for gun control and the NYT. Which are pretty much the same thing when you think about it.
 
"I’m a hunter and a sportswoman. I own guns, but not for self-defense. I support gun control laws. I would happily vote to repeal the Stand Your Ground law in my home state of Oregon."


So...if she had a gun within arms reach and some SOB grabbed her and started to rape her, she'd call the cops? What a hypocritical douche.
 
Author said:
I, baa-aaah, but I don't, baa-aah....
Click to expand...
Please report to your nearest penitentiary for a cell assignment. You look good in hunter's orange, here is an entire jumpsuit that color.

There are no "Hunter's rights" in the Constitution. The right enumerated is the natural right of self defense against both crime, tyranny and danger of all forms.
 
Last edited:
Pilgrim said:
let's see how well she hunts after her support of gun control takes away her guns.
Click to expand...

The reality is that the uber-fudds like this broad have no skin in the game, even in the anti countries their interests are often protected until the last straw.

They bend over and they think things like "psychological screenings" and the type of stuff they do in great britain are OK to own a gun. [rolleyes]

-Mike
 
drgrant said:
The reality is that the uber-fudds like this broad have no skin in the game, even in the anti countries their interests are often protected until the last straw.
Click to expand...
The "connected few" keep their arms to the last - so they support the confiscation of the plebes right up until they realize they too are expendable to the political machine they built.
 
I'm no fan of the N.R.A., but IMHO as a non hunting gun owner it is people like her that have no grasp of the Constitution or the intent of the founders that are worse then the N.R.A. in my world
 
Glockaholic said:
I'm no fan of the N.R.A., but IMHO as a non hunting gun owner it is people like her that have no grasp of the Constitution or the intent of the founders that are worse then the N.R.A. in my world
Click to expand...
I like to ask them if they really think of 2A as supporting the hunting of human beings, because that's a little grotesque...

I think of it as reflecting your natural right to defend yourself, family and home, not a license to hunt politicians and criminals. That's a little violent for my taste.

[wink]
 
Last edited:
I like how the antis think that the NRA is the baddest gun-rights organization out there.

Let's send them to JPFO or SAF or GOA. That'll blow their Birkenstocks off.
 
I just like to shoot my guns, support logical gun control, and defend my nation and its constitution from all threats foreign and domestic. I don't need to be part of the NRA to do that.
 
Reuben said:
I just like to shoot my guns, support logical gun control, and defend my nation and its constitution from all threats foreign and domestic. I don't need to be part of the NRA to do that.
Click to expand...
Do you believe in Unicorns?

If you want to talk "logic," there is no such thing as "logical gun control."

Also, there is some dissonance in your statement, are you going to defend the constitution or support its violation with gun control?

Nice first troll post!
 
Reuben said:
I just like to shoot my guns, support logical gun control, and defend my nation and its constitution from all threats foreign and domestic. I don't need to be part of the NRA to do that.
Click to expand...

Care to share what you mean by "logical"?

Sounds a bit like the "common sense" trap that Bloomberg and Mumbles Menino like to spout.
 
gun-control-gun-control-2nd-ammendment-barak-obama-socialist-demotivational-poster-1241628719.jpg
 
Garys said:
Victim mindset, victim mentality. A lot of people own cars but are not members of AAA. That doesn't mean that they don't think that AAA isn't a good organization, mostly it means that they don't think about AAA at all. It's the same with the NRA, a lot of people who would join if they thought about it, just don't think about it.

I don't have a NYT log in, so I can't get back into the article, but I read enough to know that she's not representative of most hunters, shooters, gun owners, or women. She's a shill for gun control and the NYT. Which are pretty much the same thing when you think about it.
Click to expand...

Just a side note on this comparison between the AAA and NRA. While I agree with you on the basis of your premise that not every gun owner or hunter knows about the NRA there's some subtle differences between the two groups and the things they "protect".

The NRA is working to educate folks about their NATURAL right, granted by their creator, to "keep and bear arms" as stated by our Founders. As I've said many times before, they can strike down the Second Amendment and it will mean nothing other than the fact that the Federal Government no longer choses to protect that NATURAL right, it does NOT mean that that RIGHT goes away. Things will quickly go in another direction should this ever happen of course, but I think you get my point.

AAA attempts to do many things, but ultimately only runs a shrill organization for Insurance Company's like Liberty Mutual and others who want to curtail what you can do in your own property (car) to save them $ and reduce their risk of doing business. The reason we have a Secondary Seatbelt Law in this Nanny State is because of their lobbying on behalf of company's like Liberty Mutual. Oh, but that's not enough. They want a Primary Seatbelt Law in this state that will allow an Officer to pull you over for not wearing your Seatbelt. Today you have to have another reason for them to stop you.

That said, AAA is only concerned with a PRIVILEGE, not a right. Thus the reason they think they can dictate to you about so-called Cell Phone use, Texting, Seatbelts, Inspections, Gas Mileage, Tires, Gas or Diesel, etc. See the difference?

I recently wrote a letter to AAA and Senator Timilty explaining that I was canceling my AAA membership because of these fascist activities as what I do inside my personally owned vehicle is none of their business.

You might think I'm making a case for this Fuddette, but I'm not based upon the difference between a RIGHT and a PRIVILEGE. DRIVING is a privilege, yes, but since I have a right to personal property their ability to tell me what to do stops there. I think you see the difference.

BTW, I also updated my other Post #14 in this thread with further information concerning an official response from the NRA to the New York Times.
 
Last edited:
cekim said:
Do you believe in Unicorns?

If you want to talk "logic," there is no such thing as "logical gun control."

Also, there is some dissonance in your statement, are you going to defend the constitution or support its violation with gun control?

Nice first troll post!
Click to expand...

First of all logic is subjective. My view of logical gun control is based upon firearms education, background checks, safety, and cheap prices. Education is above all. States that wanted to lower the level of gun violence and accidents all saw a drop in such problems after requiring that people pass safety courses to get their guns. I do not support licensing since it basically says that gun ownership is not a right and that it is a privilege. It also makes it difficult for law abiding citizen to obtain a firearm. I believe that once a safety course has been passed that you merely need to present when purchasing a firearm before a quick background check to make sure you aren't loony or a felon. Safety when storing weapons and ammo is important. If my kids are home alone with my guns i want them to be locked up until they are of age and have demonstrated to me that they can be around firearms and then they were to go for their firearms ed course, I would let them have access to those guns. However, I do not believe that you need to keep a lock on your firearms while you are present in the home. If you wish to walk around your property with a gun, do so. If you wish to sleep with a gun by your bed at night, do so. But if you leave firearms at home I believe that they should be locked up. This also prevents burglars from taking your guns if you are away (How are you going to shoot the burglar if he stole your gun num nuts?). Another thing I would support is lowering the prices of guns and ammo instead of trying to reap tax money out of it and creating a market in which illegal arms and ammunition could be bought for cheaper.



I also support the abolishment of Castle Law. Just because someone is on your property does not give you the right to shoot them for the merely lack of consent to be on your property. I do not believe that you should be allowed to shoot a fleeing assailant or burglar. The only time I believe that you should be able to use deadly force is when your life or another person's life is in danger from a direct threat. If I happened upon a burglar and I had a gun I would not shoot him. I will do what the police would do, make an arrest, a citizens arrest to be exact. But, that is only if they are unarmed. If they are armed, they would be asked to drop their weapon, and surrender. If they are armed or unarmed and attempt to attack me, I would then shoot. If they tried to flee my home I would order them to stop but I would not shoot. This is logic. If the police can not shoot unarmed and/or fleeing felons then why should you be able to shoot them?

As a law major, and an ex high school JSA speaker that defeated 5 different bills that would have increased gun control, I am well aware that all citizens have the right to keep and bear arms but I also know that the tenth amendment guarantees that the states have the right to control anything outside of the federal government's jurisdiction (Taxes, commerce, immigration). Gun control is based upon necessity, not the EVERYONE NEEDS A GUN TO GET RID OF CRIME HERP DERP. You dont think I can see through the NRA? The more guns there are, the more shooters there are, the more members they get, the more money they make. They have created a militant, illogical, and overconfident constituency that generally can not see past their own nose when it comes to gun control. Ive heard all of these god damn arguments and ive been shooting for the past 13 years.

Guns get rid of crime? - Not necessarily. Go to Somalia, and then talk to me.

Gun control makes people safer? - Go to california, look at the gang violence, and then come talk to me.

Guns make more crime? - Go to Maine, where you don't even need ID to buy guns and ammo, and then come talk to me.

The arguments between the two extremes are merely pure and utter bovine excrement, just as this board is. I make one post and automatically im a troll that knows nothing right? Let me know when you are tired of gun control and violence and maybe ill consider letting you have my train of thought which is that of Safety, Freedom, and Low Prices. Why will I have to consider? Well it seems thats you cant makes decisions for yourself so I will have to discuss it with an old party known as the NRA since they seem to be pretty set on making your decisions for you.
 
Last edited:
Reuben said:
Education is above all. States that wanted to lower the level of gun violence and accidents all saw a drop in such problems after requiring that people pass safety courses to get their guns. I do not support licensing since it basically says that gun ownership is not a right and that it is a privilege. It also makes it difficult for law abiding citizen to obtain a firearm. I believe that once a safety course has been passed that you merely need to present when purchasing a firearm before a quick background check to make sure you aren't loony or a felon.
Click to expand...
"Education is above all," including my natural rights its seems?

This scheme of being required to pass a safety course is the same thing as a license.

The state is precluding your exercise of a right until you have satisfied their requirements. Whether it is to get a laminated card, scrap of paper called "license," or proof you have passed their course makes no difference.

As I have said before, such systems will and HAVE be used for institutional racism and worse. My typical example is that I am your instructor, I don't like your ideas on putting up barriers to the exercise of natural rights, so I am failing you in my safety course and calling the local Chief of Police (my hypothetical brother) and telling him you should not have guns as you are an enemy of the Constitution.

That's how poll tests worked - they set up a "reasonable sounding" barrier to vote - heck wouldn't we all want only people with a clue voting?

Encouraging education? Sure, I don't have too much of a problem with PSAs on safety. Requiring it? That is an infringement with a proven track record of abuse.

For the same reason you don't need a safety course to speak, despite the spoken word being used to foment lynch mobs, gang violence and even genocide, you don't need a safety course to exercise your right to self defense.
 
Reuben said:
First of all logic is subjective. My view of logical gun control is based upon firearms education, background checks, safety, and cheap prices. Education is above all. States that wanted to lower the level of gun violence and accidents all saw a drop in such problems after requiring that people pass safety courses to get their guns.
Click to expand...

Cite your source.

Reuben said:
But if you leave firearms at home I believe that they should be locked up. This also prevents burglars from taking your guns if you are away (How are you going to shoot the burglar if he stole your gun num nuts?).
Click to expand...

Mind you own business. If that's what you want to do, fine, but stay out of my business.

Reuben said:
I also support the abolishment of Castle Law. Just because someone is on your property does not give you the right to shoot them for the merely lack of consent to be on your property. I do not believe that you should be allowed to shoot a fleeing assailant or burglar. The only time I believe that you should be able to use deadly force is when your life or another person's life is in danger from a direct threat. If I happened upon a burglar and I had a gun I would not shoot him. I will do what the police would do, make an arrest, a citizens arrest to be exact. But, that is only if they are unarmed. If they are armed, they would be asked to drop their weapon, and surrender. If they are armed or unarmed and attempt to attack me, I would then shoot. If they tried to flee my home I would order them to stop but I would not shoot. This is logic. If the police can not shoot unarmed and/or fleeing felons then why should you be able to shoot them?
Click to expand...

Who told you the police cannot shoot a fleeing felon?

Reuben said:
As a law major, and an ex high school JSA speaker...
Click to expand...

OMG! A law major and an ex high school Junior Statesmen of America! Well, then, please educate us, Oh Learned One.

Reuben said:
Guns make more crime? - Go to Maine, where you don't even need ID to buy guns and ammo, and then come talk to me.
Click to expand...

Say what, again?

Obvious immature, uneducated troll is obvious, immature, and uneducated.
 
Reuben said:
First of all .................
.......decisions for you.
Click to expand...

That is a monumental pile of liberal crap you just spewed out there.

Explain again using your subjective logic how requiring a permit violates a natural right, but requiring a safety course first doesn't.

All you need to know about your ideas can be reflected when you replace "guns" with "freedom of speech" in your little diatribe. Utter garbage and nonsense.
 
I’m a hunter and a sportswoman. I own guns, but not for self-defense. I support gun control laws. I would happily vote to repeal the Stand Your Ground law in my home state of Oregon. In other words, the N.R.A. does not represent me.
Click to expand...
putz. These statements are for more destructive than "kill em all" comments. Some people would read this rubbish and think to themselves, "See, there's someone who is all for common sense control, and she is one of them! She's not yelling at me or baring her teeth, let's enact more control and make more people like her."

ETA - saw Rueben troll's comments. Made me laugh, he should go hang out with Lilly.
 
Last edited:
Reuben said:
First of all logic is subjective. My view of logical gun control is based upon firearms education, background checks, safety, and cheap prices. Education is above all. States that wanted to lower the level of gun violence and accidents all saw a drop in such problems after requiring that people pass safety courses to get their guns. I do not support licensing since it basically says that gun ownership is not a right and that it is a privilege. It also makes it difficult for law abiding citizen to obtain a firearm. I believe that once a safety course has been passed that you merely need to present when purchasing a firearm before a quick background check to make sure you aren't loony or a felon. Safety when storing weapons and ammo is important. If my kids are home alone with my guns i want them to be locked up until they are of age and have demonstrated to me that they can be around firearms and then they were to go for their firearms ed course, I would let them have access to those guns. However, I do not believe that you need to keep a lock on your firearms while you are present in the home. If you wish to walk around your property with a gun, do so. If you wish to sleep with a gun by your bed at night, do so. But if you leave firearms at home I believe that they should be locked up. This also prevents burglars from taking your guns if you are away (How are you going to shoot the burglar if he stole your gun num nuts?). Another thing I would support is lowering the prices of guns and ammo instead of trying to reap tax money out of it and creating a market in which illegal arms and ammunition could be bought for cheaper.



I also support the abolishment of Castle Law. Just because someone is on your property does not give you the right to shoot them for the merely lack of consent to be on your property. I do not believe that you should be allowed to shoot a fleeing assailant or burglar. The only time I believe that you should be able to use deadly force is when your life or another person's life is in danger from a direct threat. If I happened upon a burglar and I had a gun I would not shoot him. I will do what the police would do, make an arrest, a citizens arrest to be exact. But, that is only if they are unarmed. If they are armed, they would be asked to drop their weapon, and surrender. If they are armed or unarmed and attempt to attack me, I would then shoot. If they tried to flee my home I would order them to stop but I would not shoot. This is logic. If the police can not shoot unarmed and/or fleeing felons then why should you be able to shoot them?

As a law major, and an ex high school JSA speaker that defeated 5 different bills that would have increased gun control, I am well aware that all citizens have the right to keep and bear arms but I also know that the tenth amendment guarantees that the states have the right to control anything outside of the federal government's jurisdiction (Taxes, commerce, immigration). Gun control is based upon necessity, not the EVERYONE NEEDS A GUN TO GET RID OF CRIME HERP DERP. You dont think I can see through the NRA? The more guns there are, the more shooters there are, the more members they get, the more money they make. They have created a militant, illogical, and overconfident constituency that generally can not see past their own nose when it comes to gun control. Ive heard all of these god damn arguments and ive been shooting for the past 13 years.

Guns get rid of crime? - Not necessarily. Go to Somalia, and then talk to me.

Gun control makes people safer? - Go to california, look at the gang violence, and then come talk to me.

Guns make more crime? - Go to Maine, where you don't even need ID to buy guns and ammo, and then come talk to me.

The arguments between the two extremes are merely pure and utter bovine excrement, just as this board is. I make one post and automatically im a troll that knows nothing right? Let me know when you are tired of gun control and violence and maybe ill consider letting you have my train of thought which is that of Safety, Freedom, and Low Prices. Why will I have to consider? Well it seems thats you cant makes decisions for yourself so I will have to discuss it with an old party known as the NRA since they seem to be pretty set on making your decisions for you.
Click to expand...

If you want to be a victim and die when someone breaks into your house your choice. Typical liberal mindset to force your views upon others. Walk into my house and your unknown to me your leaving it for a dirt nap.

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Tapatalk 2
 
I'll add that safety and freedom are mutually exclusive ideas. You can never truly have both and I choose freedom over safety every time.

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
I personally think our Castle Doctrine based laws don't go far enough.

Should be legal to hold a home invader for questioning and correction before turning them over to the PD.
 

Similar threads

Worcester PD - Going after the guns but how about the perps…
Replies
10
Views
301
Devils Paintbrush
Devils Paintbrush
File under: Show me the man, and I’ll show you the crime…
Replies
2
Views
268
ridleyman
R
I know there's a sticky: but hypothetically ...
2
Replies
33
Views
1K
Broc
Broc
I wonder why...But then
Replies
5
Views
378
Agnotology
Agnotology
Do I need to get an AK now? Yes, yes I do! But…
6 7 8
Replies
213
Views
5K
Yotacrawler
Yotacrawler
Back
Top Bottom