Mr VJP

I also believe protests are easily ignored by politicians, unless they see a lot of votes being lost because of them, or protesters burn every business and cop car in town. The real issue is the multitude of obstacles to involvement that are actually created, and put in place, by the government itself. People have to spend every waking hour of their day just trying to survive in this country. What is required in the struggle to live in this land today? People are working 48 hours a week or more on their job, sometimes needing a part time job as well. Taxes, fees, regulation, abusive laws, political and social controls, all require a lot of the people's time just to keep the government off their backs. Two income earners used to have more because of it. Now it's required just to keep treading water. A lot of retired folks can get involved in resistance, but the powers that be know those folks are going to die off before they can change anything. Politically correct constraints can get someone in hot water, causing unimaginable suffering for doing what they thought was the right thing. Not to mention the danger of putting yourself on the government's radar fighting for a cause they see as a threat to their power. Nowadays, they even demand membership info from huge organizations that oppose political regimes, so they can go after individuals one at a time, thereby intimidating the rest of them into submission and silence. That's what the IRS was doing when it targeted organizations opposed to Obama. All of this is unconstitutional and illegal, but what is being done to stop it? Nobody is willing to risk losing everything, which is a very real possibility, to fight the tyranny. The 60's are over people. It's a whole new world with a entirely different level of government abuse being employed. Total submission to big government and giving it total power is the objective. This is not new in the history of the world as many oppressive regimes have done exactly the same thing in the past. If you study history, you will also see these regimes did not politely let go of their agendas when people protested. The most interesting thing about the agenda is, it can not be accomplished without a lot of support from a lot of the citizens the government has. These misguided fools are the biggest threat to your freedom, because they are the ones voting for it, keeping the bad politicians in office and demanding the government pursue the big government agenda vigorously. Gun control is just a very small part of the agenda overall, but it's a very vital one in regards to control. The only way the pending tyranny will be stopped, is by stopping the huge contingency of idiots in the electorate that are cheering it on. If you want to effectively protest tyranny, protest the fools that are supporting it and shame them into silence. The elected have no shame. The target has to be the people who support the shameless elected officials. It's not happening now, because those who would do so, are being politically shamed by the left using twisted logic and the bible of tolerance. The left has to be given credit for implementing this strategy and successfully employing it against the Constitution and the citizens who have always defended freedom in America. This is the very same strategy that must be redirected and employed against the fools, by those who wish to stop the madness. What does this mean for the future of America? An extremely divided country based on political ideology that will not compromise or come to a peaceful agreement about freedom. We have two choices now. Fight with every fiber of your being to the very end, or surrender. Based on what I have seen lately regarding resistance, there will not be a fight, at least not from the current citizens suffering in this society. They do not have the desire, or will, to risk everything for the future of this land and their progeny. Maybe a future generation will not be so fearful of saying, "We will not comply!". And that may only happen when they see there is no hope for better and they have never had anything to lose.

Doc, I believe most non-hunters think a poacher is just a hunter who didn't follow the rules. I also believe they think most hunters do not follow the rules some of the time. So, in their minds, all poachers are hunters and most hunters poach sometimes. I see little hope of getting the Main Stream Media involved in correcting that erroneous perception. I see the MSM being the cause of it.

No more than in any other segment of society IMO. I prefer to point out the competent people in the gun/hunting community and I believe they are the majority. We all hang together, or we will certainly all hang separately.

OK, I heard about those points, but was hoping there were more.

Who said I was offended? I just find it interesting how some gun owners are most gun owners worst critics.

Sounds like it comes from the mind of an anti-gun radical, doesn't it?

Got any details on which parts would be repealed?

Peeling an onion brings tears to some people's eyes.

Grow, I think the anti coyote hunting crowd would not buy that logic, even though it is fact. Once you try to justify hunting because you eat your kill, you really have nowhere else to go in the minds of the clueless.

They're already all over us hunters, so it doesn't really matter. Besides when their BMW's and Mercedes Benz's keep hitting deer, they will scream for someone to do something. That's just what happened in Princeton, NJ a few decades ago when they thought they were smart an outlawed hunting there. Now they have to pay sharpshooters $1000 per deer to kill them at night (not legal during hunting in NJ) over bait with rifles (not legal for hunting in NJ) that are so called assault weapons (not legal at all in NJ) using silencers (need I say more?). Just who are the crazies helping?

I didn't realize any nut jobs had a good name to worry about having tarnished. LOL!

We need to differentiate between a poacher and a hunter. The man probably didn't even have a hunting license. We should not allow him to cast a shadow on the image of lawful hunters. It's funny how certain things are OK to generalize in society, when it suits the agenda of those who wish to oppress. As an aside, it's about time to allow deer hunting, at least with a bow, on Staten Island. The deer population is growing quickly and without hunting will soon become a big problem.

The position of hunting for meat becomes a problem when asked why there are varmint and predator hunters. You will inevitably find yourself in a position of explaining why you don't eat woodchuck, fox, coyote, raccoon, bobcat, etc. The meat position also throws trappers under the bus. It's one of the reasons trapping has become so terribly regulated, to the point of significantly reducing the number of trappers and the impact they have on reducing predator populations.

I once posted an article about how much money hunter's contribute to conservation and that we should be proud to be able to say hunter's are America's premiere conservationists. I was surprised to see a rebuttal post telling me hunter's are not conservationists and have no right to claim to be. Seems to me, many within the hunting community have a lot of hatred for the average hunter. Unless you meet their standards of excellence, you're a slob they need to make excuses for. I worry this is the message they send to non-hunters when they speak to them.

Where is there any hostility in just saying "No" and taking the question from there? When asked, "Is it wrong to kill?" Answer, "No". How is that hostile? If you believe it is wrong to kill, you should not be hunting, talking about hunting, or trying to sell hunting to anyone who does not hunt. I would not have any difficulty politely answering that question in front of a classroom full of kids.

Hey, he's back. Where you been Born?

I miss Rheingold!

Oh for God's sake. What the hell is wrong with you?

Seems like any answer you judge to be lacking somehow, is horrible. By saying a simple, "No" to the question, you don't put yourself in an inferior debate position that works from the point of apology, rather than justification. I didn't say leave it there either. Wait for the rebuttal and deal with it from there with facts. No hunter should ever proceed in a discussion from a point of apologizing for hunting. There is nothing about hunting that demands an apology to those who don't understand it. The fact that a school kid would ask such a question is evidence the kid has been taught to think like that. If the kid is open to free thinking, and not closed minded after being taught what to think, you may actually inject a little truth in the kid's mind.

Simply say, "No". Wait for the student's rebuttal, which will be convoluted and full of moral righteousness, then ask if he knows the difference between killing and murder. Everything that lives kills. Murder is evil, hunting is not. To eat, killing is required, unless you eat something like rocks.

"The emotions that good hunters need to cultivate are love and service more than courage. The sentiments of the hunt then become translated into art. James Swan, In Defense of Hunting

"No culture has yet solved the dilemma each has faced with the growth of a conscious mind: how to live a moral and compassionate existence when one is fully aware of the blood, the horror inherent in all life, when one finds darkness not only in one's own culture but within oneself... There are simply no answers to some of the great pressing questions. You continue to live them out, making your life a worthy expression of a leaning into the light." Barry Lopez, Arctic Dreams

"The true trophy hunter is a self-disciplined perfectionist seeking a single animal, the ancient patriarch well past his prime that is often an outcast from his own kind... If successful, he will enshrine the trophy in a place of honor. This is a more noble and fitting end than dying on some lost and lonely ledge where the scavengers will pick his bones, and his magnificent horns will weather away and be lost forever." Elgin Gates, Trophy Hunter in Asia

"How, given the canine teeth and close-set eyes that declare the human animal to be a predator, had we come up with the notion that oat bran is more natural to eat than chicken?" Valerie Martin, The Great Divorce

IMHO, non-hunters do not support hunting in their hearts. They may be convinced it isn't a bad thing, but they will not actively support it when it is threatened, because they have no personal use for it. The best you can hope for is their apathy towards it.