Seems his logic is skewed IMO also, but at least the article is mostly pro hunting. I dont think anyone really needs a human target to learn where to shoot a person anyway. If you can hit a black dot you can kill a man.
I'v never shot at a human likeness target but see nothing wrong if someone chooses to do so. Its a piece of paper nuthing more.
Condeming any gun is bad for our cause, people kill people nothing more nothing less.
To call an SKS an attack weapon is somewhat rediculous to anyone with knowledge of frearms. Not so much because its not an attack weapon but because such a term can be used to describe any gun one chooses & the same applies to "assault weapon" as used by the legislature.
Our country was won with flintlock weapons, they were assault or attack weapons at that time, next came single shot breech loaders & then single shot cartrige arms, both used by the military so I guess they are assault weapons as well. Then the advent of the lever action repeater certainly put more firepower in the hands of a rifleman than previous designs so these too must be attack weapons. Bolt actions were the choice of the military for decades so they must be a suitable attack arm. Now we have semi autos available to the public which are not desirable to the miltary who choose select fire arms capable of full auto fire.
So now for some reason, for the first time in America the people aren't trusted with the guns that our miltary requires us to buy for them. And to top it off lesser firearms are labeled assault weapons when no assault team in the world would go afield with a semiauto.
The second amendment according to some refers to a milita not an indivdual but when people attempt to form militias, even with the lesser arms with which we are trusted they are labeled whackos. That beside the point that a militia cant even be formed without armed ctizens & realistically, a militia consisting of men armed with the guns currently available to the common American will be ill suited for any real combat operations.
The plain simple truth is that the 2nd was intended to keep the PEOPLE as well armed as the military.
Every gun ever concieved was intended to shoot something & cause it harm, thats a no brainer & to argue that some guns are ok because they are used for hunting while others are "evil" because they are used by the military is a very bad thing for gun owners everywhere.
Every gun does damage to what gets shot. Every gun owner is responsable for his actions with a gun, be it a muzzle loader or an Uzi.
Seems to me that if these hunters that Vang shot had been armed with an evil assault weapon they could have much better defended themselves.
This man, who wrote this article, while meanng well does no small harm by labeling a gun as an "attack weapon" Liberals sieze on this stuff to further their agenda of weakness & helplesness.
I tend to get long winded when I hear someone express the opinion that "Assault weapons" should be banned but my gun is ok because its a hunting gun.
You can hunt with an assault weapon if you choose and you can assault with a hunting gun, but you, the individual who squeezess that trigger are the hunter or assailant whichever the case may be & bear the ressponsbility. The weapon is simply a tool which like many other tools can be used for good or bad.
The sad fact is the majority of the people in the USA are weak spineless individuals who would rather have something in place to protect them than take responsability for their own saftey.
I take my saftey & that of my family personally & thats how I will defend them should the need arise. Personally.
