The hunting gun standard

[TIMBERTRAMP]

Although I live in a rural area where most households have a gun or more, and many poeple hunt and or shoot for fun I commute to a major meto area to work,where most people don't(fools don't know what fun thier missing) want anything to do with firearms,I tend to be pretty up front about my belief in second admendment rights .and in debates /discussions with my citified coworkers I keep hearing the same theme-you can have a gun for hunting,we want assullt rifles banned,this tends to cut across party lines as most of rep,s I work with say the same thing I think its more of a rural-those who know that very few americans actualy own a real select fire assullt wpn verus city folk who,actually know very little about the  subject but insist they would be safer if anything but leveraction deer guns were banned.have others on this board had similar discussions and how did you resolve or educate the those who probaly would vote to ban all modern wpns based ,never mind that the second admendment dose'nt say that one can only own hunting guns-btw I have a great come back for the antihunters that I meet and play on how the only envoirmentaly pure foods I eat are what I catch,hunt, or grow as they comsume very little of the earths resources unlke the organic veggies that they consume that are grown in far away places on land denied to wildife watered with water sucked from rivers, and trucked  across country in fossil fuel /polluting  trucks -i'm pilng it high of course but i've actually changed a few minds with line-TT

[victorcharlie]

The real problem with making the arguement that the only legitimate use for a firearm is hunting is that hunting is costing the hunter more and more each year.   Hunting is quickly becoming a sport for the affluent.

Once the poor can't hunt then they don't need guns right?

The intent of the second ammendment is to provide the citizen with security, and as a means to insure liberty.

One only has to read the historical documents from the founding fathers to understand the intent.

They also warned us about keeping a standing army.....seems they thought if you had a standing army you would probably use it.....and their biggest fear was it would be used against the citizens.

[TIMBERTRAMP]

slight misunderstanding victor charlie-i'm looking for a augument to use when i debate those who feel the only legit use of a firearm is for hunting,I use the hunters as envoirmentalist aug. when dealing with animal rights activists.as prior I am a strong second admendment advocate and belive gun control actualy increases or enables crime I belive the banning of ccw's on airplanes  made 911 a lot easier for the asscracks to perp.TT

[Almtnman]

The hunting issue should not be used when debating with those people. To debate them, simply tell them that the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution gives you a constitutional right to own guns of your choice as long as they are legally owned. Then ask them if they want to violate the Constitution by denying you your rights to own a gun. Ask them what the Constitution is and what it means. Keep at them asking them questions and eventually they will get the message. Never try to defend yourself from those jerks, just ask them a question in return on constitutional issues. If they know what the Constitution says in it, they won't ask again. If they don't know the answer to your question about what it is or states, I doubt that they will want to debate it any farther. You might also tell this to them and let it soak in. Tell them that the police has no duty to protect you or anyone else. Tell them to ask any police department of their choice, if they don't believe it. That will end the debate for them.

[sparsons]

Most anit-gun people will never change. You are basically preaching to the choir. At my brother's store where I work we make it known fact that we are armed. With crime the way it is here most people understand. I let them know I have rifles at home and have no qualms about shooting some one if they break in. Very few people have questioned my right to own guns. Those that do I remind them of the crime in the  area and the people who were victims of armed crimes. I have little to any agruement.  I may state the fact I have a right to own but never make it the main point. That just seems to be agruementive. Mention crime and protection and people tend to listen to what you have to say. Of course here in WV many people hunt and most people know that so gun ownership maybe not be as big a problem as in other states.

[wgr]

i agree never argue with theses people about your right to own a firearm. i have a concealed   wepons permit  i dont let most people knopw i even have it little lone the fact that i have a pistol on me 99% of the time even at home.i was asked why i carried it once my answer its mine its leagle and i have the right and walked off was never ask that again