ORIGINAL: dpms

Thank you for your admission.  After all of these discussion on this thread and others, that is the first recognition on your part that the change was good for gun owners.

 
 
 
More bull for this thread. I said it, over one year ago:
 
I'm with S-10, I see very little need for one. A great win politically, let's just hope it doesn't backfire. I'd rather concentrate my efforts/money on treestand safety.
 
You fellas should start worrying about your memory loss instead of what you thought I said.   Maybe you just don't read what I wrote.     I can't even have a discussion about why I don't think a pistol is effective in a number of situations and why if safety is infact our #1 concern, PA wild animals are not dangerous compared to what we do everyday without getting labeled as anti.  I didn't start the discussion, but rather am having to defend myself because a few folks can't remember what I said.  Good grief.. 
 
You're setting yourself up for complete contradiction because you just said what I'm been saying all along throughout.  It's your right to carry but you don't feel the need to everywhere (apparently because you don't take it everywhere), or because you don't find it to be effective for every situation.   The only "anti" comment I ever made was my first response to the original thread a year ago, and that was a premature response that was geared towards the poaching problem I have witnessed over the years.  At that point, the 2nd amendment was not a part of HOW I was thinking of all of this.
 
I thought you may be refering to Ted Nugent as anti-gun and I didn't understand why or how.

You're not correct because I did say it was a great win, so this thread is not the first I've recognized that this was good for gun owners.
 
You carry based on "urge" but not when you feel the situation could somehow get a little riskier than others?  That makes no sense at all. 
 
I know, I know, it's your right.  At least I now know you don't carry for protection but instead walk around with a pistol because the "urge" strikes you.  Don't put any sense behind your statements, just let everyone know you do because you can.  Great!!! The anti's could have fun with that one.  Talk about fuel!!
 
I think I'll go into town tonight, set up assembly, and start preaching.  Not because I want to, or because I have a purpose, or because I believe in it, just because I got the urge and because I can.  That's funny!!!  Guess you don't have to make sense to have American pride.

ORIGINAL: SilverKype
 Guess you don't have to make sense to have American pride.

 
The typical stereotype of gun owners from the antis.  You fit right in.

The flaw in that arguement is "the right to keep and bear arms" is a right.  Would you like to dispute and justify our other rights as american citizens?
 
We must justify through facts and science the value of hunting to our society.

ORIGINAL: dpms

ORIGINAL: thedrake

Perhaps gun owners like Jon and I who dont feel as though we need to carry a firearm around every corner, make gun owners look better in the eyes of non gun owners, as compared to those who are "packing heat" even when they go to the grocery store.

If anything makes gun owners look rediculous, its people "packing" everywhere they go. Most people know they arent in danger at the grocery store or the mall, and when they hear of someone carrying a gun there, they view that person as crazy.

Concealed carry is just that, concealed.  You should not know who is "packing heat" at the grocery store.  Statements like that make it appear that you are expressing your views trying to make them appear as how others view it.

 
You are right, I should not know who is carrying at the grocery store, but people do it. You and I both know that. I gave the example of my future brother-in-law earlier. He carries nearly everywhere he goes, grocery store included. Think that is a good idea???
 
I am not TRYING to express my views trying to make them appear as others view them; I know others who DO view the issue in that way. They aren't "antis" or gun owners. 
 
Nobody on this thread is questioning gun rights. We are simply questioning appropriatness. The original topic was not wether we should or should not be allowed to have guns, it was simply wether or not it was appropriate to protect yourself from wild animals in PA. You gun nuts really need to understand that not all bears are going to eat you, people around every corner are not going to mug you, and not everyone is trying to take away gun rights.
 
Anyone who carries their gun everywhere for protection, should also be sure to wear their seatbelts, drive under the speed limit, don't smoke, dont drink and drive, wear a safety harness in a treestand, eat heart-healthy foods, wash their hands often...the list could go on and on. Neglecting to do these things puts you at much more risk than walking around without a firearm.
 
 
Once again as a preemptive strike....I am a gun owner, I understand the right to bear arms shall not be infringed, and I am not anti-gun.

ORIGINAL: SilverKype

To get that I'm an anti-hunter or anti-gun out of this thread just shows your ignorance,

 
Just to clarify, I never accused you of being anti-hunter.  By your posts, I would hunt with you anytime. 

I said some of your views fit right in with some of the anti-gun stereotypes.  Never mentioned anti-hunter.
 
Listen, I just find it unfortunate when sportsmen and women are willing to compromise on our gun rights.  Many states allow hunting with semi-automatics for many species.  AR-15's are fast becoming legitimate sporting weapons gaining popularity in many circles.  Those same guns and many semi shotguns and .22 rifles(that we all use) are being targeted by the anti-gun crowd.  We may see some real restrictions after November.  One Presidential candidate wants to eliminate everyones right to carry a concealed weapon.
 
Those scenarios are scary.  We as sportsman should be the most vocal group supporting gun ownership rights and do not compromise on "sensible", "appropriate" or "common sense" gun legislation. 
 
Those words coming from within the ranks of the biggest block that would be effected fires me up.  Those words are how anti-gun legislation is sold.  Those are words that none of us should use when discussing gun laws.  Those words will be heard shortly by all of us by those people that have much more restrictive legislation in mind. 

It's probably not a bad idea if he lived in Compton, but i'm not so sure he's going to get mugged in Gettysburg. Like I said earlier, it is someone's right to carry but is it reasonable to carry everywhere?

Done for now on this one too.

Mark my words if the political climate changes come November.  You will see anti-gun legislation with the words: reasonable, common sense, appropriate or sensible. 

Those same words used by some in this thread that say they are pro-gun.

Consider me "done", as well.....after this post

I dont think the word "reasonable" is "anti" whatsoever. If I were to say, using a .375 H&H magnum is not "reasonable" to use in the deer woods, am I being "anti-gun". If I say "common sense" tells me I didn't need to be packing heat when I walked to the espresso bar today, am I being "anti". Oh, by the way, I just walked the entire way from my car to my office (an entire 50 yards) and didn't need a gun to make it there safely. Does saying "I didnt need a gun" make me an "anti"?

ORIGINAL: dpms



Mark my words if the political climate changes come November.  You will see anti-gun legislation with the words: reasonable, common sense, appropriate or sensible. 

Those same words used by some in this thread that say they are pro-gun.

 
The same legislation may have the words "the", "if", and "in". Those words are in your post. You must be anti-gun now too.
 
 
I guess I wasn't done afterall.

Guys, guys--If you want to carry a gun just say I want to, I am allowed to, and therefore I will. Don't try to justify it by fear of something (like a black bear attack) that happens less often than being hit by lightening. You don't have to justify it and trying to leaves you open to the comments I and others have made. If you want to keep your guns and gun rights look carefully at Obamas record on them before you vote. We already know the Clintons position on them but do you know Obamas record is worse? I don't carry because I CHOOSE not to. If you CHOOSE to carry, so be it.

ORIGINAL: dpms

ORIGINAL: thedrake
I guess I wasn't done afterall.

Me niether.

Can't help it when I see such shortsightedness.

Let's cut to the chase.  You have made comments in other threads about "assault weapons" as the antis like to call them.

Do you support the reinstatement of the "assault weapons ban" that was in effect under the Clinton administration?

Do you support making making new manufactured high capacity magazines illegal?

Do you support making concealed carry illegal?

Do you support making the .50BMG illegal for civilian ownership?

Do you believe that states, counties, townships, cities or municipalities should be allowed to enact thier own forms of gun control such as the District of Columbia case before the supreme court?

Answer any or all of these in a truthful fashion if you want.  Some of these are past, present and possibly future legislation in the works.

All these questions on a topic that is about protecting yourself from bears??? You really are a gun nut. Did you mean to post them on another thread, because they seem to come out of nowhere? Regardless, i'll answer you questions....

Do you support the reinstatement of the "assault weapons ban" that was in effect under the Clinton administration?

No.

Do you support making making new manufactured high capacity magazines illegal?

No.

Do you support making concealed carry illegal?

No.

Do you support making the .50BMG illegal for civilian ownership?

No.

Do you believe that states, counties, townships, cities or municipalities should be allowed to enact thier own forms of gun control such as the District of Columbia case before the supreme court?

No.


I'm sure you wanted me to answer yes to these questions, as you seem to want to pin the tag "anti" on me. At one time, I felt somewhat differently than I do now about gun ownership. Although I support someones right to own an "assult weapon", I dont think just anyone should be able to own one. That is why I support background checks.

Can you understand that if someone from the non gun-owning crowd asks you why you carry a pistol wherever you go, and you reply "because its my right", you'll look foolish to them. Yes, it is our right to carry a concealed weapon, but it is not an answer to their question. My girlfriend came home just a little while ago, and after noticing that I went to the grocery store she asked, "why did you go to the grocery store?" If I would have responded "because I have a drivers license", she would have looked at me like I was an r-tard (at least more so than usual), because I didn't answer her question. The real answer I gave her was "because I needed some bananas, duh". Me answering "because I have a drivers license" is just the same as the answer "because its my right"

I guess my point is that you're missing mine. I questioned why people feel like they should be packing at the grocery store, or while walking the dog, and your answer was essentially "because its thier right". Do you understand now how that doesn't make sense? It's not an answer to the question.

Carry your concealed gun wherever you want, Grocery store, mall, church, to get the mail, out to dinner...wherever. I dont really care where you take it. It is your right to do so. I mentioned that several times.

Go find someone who is truly antigun to argue with.

We need to justify because we are talking about safety.  Safety needs justification.  Your are talking about rights.  They do not need justification.  We are refering to two different subjects.   It is impossible for us to come to an agreeable conclusion because you are talking about two different things, so give it up.

The straw is getting shorter ... sure it's not your ability to comprehend?
 
Good grief..
 
I'll give your one tract mind an example:
 
Safety:
 
If I go to the supermarket and a walk down da hood, in terms of safety, which one will I more likely need protection.  We all know the answer to that.
 
Right:
 
If I go to the supermarket and a walk down da hood, in terms my right to carry, which one will I more likely need protection.  It doesn't matter because it's my right. 
 
They are separate intentions with separate meanings.  You cannot and I think you will ever be able to understand that.