You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #291: "Americans have the right to own a gun for personal use the same as they h [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
Kali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-02-04 11:33 AM
Response to Reply #288
291. "Americans have the right to own a gun for personal use the same as they h
Guess that answers my question. On to the next. Maybe you could leave some of the rabid sounding rhetoric out, I read it several times, it gets kind of repetitious and then turns readers off of trying to figure out what your points are.

Next:

"I think public Congressional hearings should be held into gun industry marketing and business practices, ala Big Tobacco. I think the gun industry should be subject to liability laws and should not receive any special protection. I'd also like to see one into the hunting industry--the public rationale for hunting is to reduce populations in the wild, but a sizable percentage of hunting takes place on game farms these days."

No opinion on inquiries to marketing and business practices, though just from my perspective I don't recieve much marketing info - the occasional gun show add in the local paper. I haven't studied the issue, know there is some controversy, but suspect that like a lot of demands for the government to DO SOMETHING, it will likely be some sort of ineffective bandaid, if not an out right whoops we made the problem worse. (does that sound right wing? maybe I'm really a libertarian, sometimes I think so, but the party seems so full of nut cases)

Curious about your statement re: hunting, seems pretty strongly regulated where I am (Arizona) and while there is an aspect of controling numbers, the hunters and Game and fish, at least, claim that fees paid and other contributions made are aimed at maintaining viable hunting populations of various game animals. (though its my understanding the Elk situation up north is problematic) I don't hunt, but where I live I get quite few families that seem to actually be supplementing their food supplies, especially a couple of hispanic hunters that have been in the area for years. I live in the country so I see the populations and while I have a mild feeling of "we don't really need to do this" (plus if they want some, wild range grown meat I would do better selling them beef), I also know the numbers of stuff that gets taken deosn't seem to hurt anything. I also have the opinion that while I don't hunt, and it doesn't hurt me or anybody else I can tolerate it. Plus, for me by having a positive relationship with them they become extra eyes on a big space that I am responsible for...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC