Sometimes, reading the newspaper just hurts my head...

[T.O.M.]

Got home from work yesterday, did my yard work, and sat down after dinner to read the paper like most days.  I usually enjoy reading the OpEd page, to keep up, and often to laugh at the dumb ideas of teh public.  This one, however, hurt my head (Columbus Dispatch, April 27, 2009)

Hunters don't need to use assault rifle
Monday,  April 27, 2009 3:06 AM


I am a gun owner and have done some hunting in the past. I am really upset that a gun owner and hunter would be upset because of the ban on assault rifles. I do not understand the reasoning for this view.

An assault rifle can be used for only two purposes: killing people and hunting. If you need an assault rifle to kill game, you should not be hunting.

I think everybody should be able to keep handguns and rifles for home protection and for hunting. This is our constitutional right.

JERRY E. SANBORN
Lancaster

link:  http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/editorials/stories/2009/04/27/Sanborn_ART_04-27-09_A8_29DL98T.html?sid=101


Not that I'm surprised by the lack of logic, but it still hurts my head to try and think his way.

[slugcatcher]

He's right. Hunters don't need an assault rifle or a rifle that looks like one. However, the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with hunting.

[never_retreat]

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

An assault rifle is a rifle designed for combat, with selective fire (capable of shooting in both fully automatic and semi automatic modes). Assault rifles are the standard infantry weapons in most modern armies, having largely superseded or supplemented larger and more powerful battle rifles such as the M14, FN FAL and the Heckler & Koch G3. Examples of assault rifles include the AK-47, the M16 and the Steyr AUG.

[makattak]

I think everybody should be able to keep handguns and rifles for home protection and for hunting. This is our constitutional right.

Judging from his letter, he thinks handguns should only be used for home protection and rifles only used for hunting.

Funny, I'm of the opinion that rifles can also be used for home defense and pistols can also be used for hunting.

There's also shotguns, which have a use for both as well.

However, certain guns are better designed for each purpose. I wonder which type of rifle might be better for home protection?

[Ben]

So when did Jimmy Carter start using the pen name "Jerry E. Sanborn"?

[Balog]

So when did Jimmy Carter start using the pen name "Jerry E. Sanborn"?

Win. 

[Perd Hapley]

That is hilarious.  But I am upset that he is upset that a gun owner is upset about the ban on assault rifles that can be used for hunting. 

[coppertales]

Sounds like my Dad, if it isn't a 12 ga or a 30-30, no one should have one.  I can think of several hunting areas where a short semi-auto rifle would be perfect.  One is shooting coyotes off my porch at camp.....Another would be having a short semi-auto slung over my shoulder while mowing on the back 5 acres, I only have 9.....you never know what will be back there in the woods....A third would be having a short semi auto behind the seat while driving through south Dallas on the way to camp.....chris3

[Nitrogen]

My response would be simple:

Hunters don't need to use assault rifle
Monday,  April 27, 2009 3:06 AM


I am a car owner and have done some driving in the past. I am really upset that a car owner and driver would be upset because of the ban on sports cars. I do not understand the reasoning for this view.

A sports car can be used for only two purposes: speeding and getting you somewhere fast. If you need a sports car to get you somewhere fast, you should not be driving.

I think everybody should be able to keep mini coopers and Smartfortwos for transportation. This is our constitutional right.

[gunsmith]

that paper is soooo 20th century, no place for us to snark.

[MechAg94]

I keep thinking one of these days people will realize that the guns I "NEED" have absolutely nothing to do with this debate.

[thebaldguy]

I have actually run into this with quite a few hunters I know - friends and family.

Some feel that there is never a need for what they call an "assult rifle". My dad always used to say that no one needed a handgun. He was a hunter.

Some think only hunters should be able to own firearms. My brother in law said this.  If you don't hunt, why do you need a gun? I'm a vegetarian who doesn't hunt; why can't I own a firearm?

Some feel the way I do about the 2nd Amendment. Not all hunters are "antis". Some are, and I have never understood that. It's almost the "it's ok for me to do this but not ok for you to do this" mentality.

[RevDisk]

I think everybody should be able to keep handguns and rifles for home protection and for hunting. This is our constitutional right.

I am unaware of any provision in the US Constitution regarding hunting or any sports.   US vs Miller said any weapons not of a military nature are ok to infringe (not saying I agree, but that was the ruling).  You could interprete the Supreme Court's ruling as an M16 or an M240 being Constitutionally protected by the 2A and a .22 single shot not being protected by the 2A. 

Sigh.  I love the Zumbo's of the gun community.  They really do think of they sell us EBR types down the river, they'll be safer.