TheGreatGamble

4 minutes ago, Amazatron said:

 

Why should my vote in California be worth jack shit compared to someone in North Dakota?

Your vote isn’t worth less. It’s as important as any other vote in your state.

The electoral college was created so rich states couldn’t rule over poorer/less populated ones. We shouldn’t have to change the electoral process because democrats are mad they didn’t win.

6 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

 

Where did I say all hunting is for entertainment? You are the one that keeps making that leap because I hurt your feelings. 

 

One more time, a little slower and a little louder, killing animals for your own entertainment is a moral failing.

 

If you don’t do that, why are you flailing around like this to defend those who kill animals for entertainment?

 

Nobody kills animals for entertainment, so your argument is bullshit. I don’t know any hunters who do it strictly to kill, and to assert that they do is ridiculous. It’s a fairytale made by non hunters to disparage hunting.

3 minutes ago, Jason said:

 

How dare the majority not want to be ruled by a tyranny of the minority. 

Man, we have states looking to circumvent the will of their state by giving out electorate to the nationwide winner instead of the states winner. It’s disgusting.

the electoral college stops states like NY and Cali from making decisions for smaller states. That’s a good thing.

I know a lot of professionals who killed their west Montana accents, but none who changed their voice. Still, I understand why a woman might do so.

i need to check out this documentary.

1 minute ago, sblfilms said:

 

In regards to treatment of animals, I am morally superior to those who kill animals for entertainment. If you don’t kill animals for entertainment, so are you. It’s not a difficult math problem.

You eat farmed beef, therefore you are not morally superior to hunters. Again, stop trying to qualify hunting as entertainment. That’s more bullshit only non-hunters say to try to make themselves feel better about their ridiculous opinions.

in general, anyone I’ve met who claims moral superiority are fools who look down on everyone else. 

I can can almost guess you’re from the south. Only southern christians make claims of moral superiority 

46 minutes ago, CastlevaniaNut18 said:

The NRA would stroke out at your propositions. 

True. While I support the NRA, I don’t agree with everything they advocate for.

5 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

 

I’m sorry I hurt your feelings.

No hurt feelings, just pointing out that you claiming you are morally superior is incredibly ridiculous 

9 hours ago, Jason said:

 

One thing I’m against is getting rid of the electoral college. It gives too much power to high population states.

2 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

Maybe, just maybe, their goals are nefarious.

 

Also just lol at that whole post. "We're worried about death by a thousand cuts" "here's one of those cuts, and it's deep, and clips the jugular"

No, their goals are to protect the 2nd amendment, which would be in much worse shape without them.

12 hours ago, thewhyteboar said:

Can't believe that even with all the evidence, Bob Kraft still got off.

Evidence of what? Paying for a handjob? Did you expect prison?

Edit: Shit, missed the double entendre.

10 hours ago, thewhyteboar said:

The NRA is evil and actively working to make the world a worse place. Everyone would be better off if they ceased to exist.

The NRA isn’t evil, they are doing what they were created to do 

Like me I said, gun owners are worried about death by a thousand cuts. It never ends with just Arcalites.

Now, I’ll tell you what I’d be fine with them ridding us of, which is open carry, and more restrictions on concealed carry (where and when, nobody needs a gun at work, the bar, the coffee shop, or in a store, for example). 

Im also for mental health competency. Make gun owners see a psychiatrist twice a year to ensure they are still mentally fit to own weapons. And make the gun owner pay for it. Miss your scheduled appointment, you get a notice with 30 days to have it done, then if still not in compliance, come get their fucking guns.

12 hours ago, fuckle85 said:

To clarify, at the end of the day where I'm coming from is this:  I think it's possible to enjoy exploring the natural world without any plans/intent of taking on the added risk of bringing weapons for the purpose of shooting animals for sport, and having the opinion that this is preferable to spending outdoors time via hunting is neither wrong, nor as weird as wanting to let children shoot guns.

This is a bad argument.  It only takes a five minute google search to prove there are several hunting accidents, sometimes involving children, that happen, and your "only the city types are the sociopathic shooters" reasoning has no backing at all.  There are multiple incidents of people living in/coming from rural areas killing people via guns, intentional or otherwise, and it's pretty dumb to deny that.

 

I get how there can be a thrill in hunting game and that it can be a bonding experience with friends and family, but saying there isn't an element of risk to the lives of humans while using boomsticks is just false, buddy.  It's your hobby and a tradition, possibly a food source, and if you want to ignore there's an inherent danger/risk involved in using any using tools designed for violence you have the freedom to take that stance, but it's just a weird hill to want to die on and not a very logical statement to make. 

 

 

Again, there is nothing dangerous about responsible use of guns. You keep saying there is, but can’t provide an example. 

People are dangerous, not guns. What’s my kid going to do? Shoot a tree?

hell, I’m far more concerned about him riding horses than I am of him hunting. It’s obvious you know nothing about responsible gun ownership, so it’s ridiculous that you are choosing this hill to die on.

15 hours ago, sblfilms said:

 

You don’t go hunting simply to get meat, you’ve described yourself the thrill of hunting. The notion that hunting in developed nations is not primarily driven by the sport of it is obviously false. Enjoying the fruits of that labor in the products of the kill doesn’t diminish that truth.

 

Killing an an animal for entertainment is a moral failing, even if you cook it’s delicious body for dinner.

Yes, there is a thrill to hunting. There’s also a thrill to a quick kill. What is gut wrenching is a bad hit that lets an animal get away. 

Ill say say it again, EVERY state in this country has Wanton Waste laws with huge fines. 35 years I’ve been alive, I’ve never, even met one of these sport hunters of yours in North America. It’s generally an African hunting thing that 99% of us want no part of. In fact, the only time there isn’t a salvage requirement is in the case of depredation permits, which are only awarded to protect livestock from predators.

and again, farming elk/deer/beef is far less humane than hunting it. It’s funny to hear you talk about moral failings while also advocating caging animals for their whole life so you can eat.

now again, I have cattle, pork, chicken and turkey on my hobby ranch, so I’m no more moral than you, but at least I’m not pretending to be.

14 minutes ago, osxmatt said:

 

I don’t think his point was about the statistical representation of sport hunting, but that it’s mere existence, and your defense of it, are moral failures.

Because it rarely happens. The USA has wanton waste laws. It’s illegal not to use the meat of game animals in EVERY state, and the fines are huge. 

The idea that that trophy hunters leave meat behind is ridiculous. And also, killing old, trophy animals is the best thing you can do for the herd.

6 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

 

Not necessarily. My wife is part of a local co-op that raises various animals for consumption and uses human practices in raising and slaughtering. If you’re just buying the mass produced meat at Walmart, sure.

 

Assuming you are correct (which I find dubious), what does that matter? Most guns aren’t fired at human beings, but it is still a moral failing to murder somebody.

90% of people are buying their meat at grocery stores and you know it.

again, there is no moral failing in killing to eat. It’s how we’ve survived most of our history. Unless you are actual vegan, you have no argument against hunting. 

Do do you think that your wife’s coop kills more humanely than hunting? Most animals live seconds at the very most, and it’s the best death they could hope for out in the wild.

I have cattle too. Mines a hobby ranch. They live great lives. Fencing animals to kill is still less ethical than hunting.

Just now, PaladinSolo said:

Uhhh, like literally the only reason i view hunting as necessary and worthwhile is because fuckwads kill predatory species.

Bet you buy meat too, though, huh?

Just now, sblfilms said:

 

Sport hunting is a moral failure. It serves no purpose but to tickle the more barbaric parts of our brains and is at the expense of helpless animals.

Less than one percent of hunters are sport hunters, so again, you have no point.

40 minutes ago, ort said:

 

You could apply the same logic to eating meat.

 

I also find hunting to be a pretty loathsome hobby, and I eat meat... but I don't pretend that I'm not pointlessly causing the suffering of animals for my pleasure. That's what I do every time any of us eat meat.

Buying meat causes far more suffering than hunting, so I’m not sure how you can loathe hunting but be fine with buying meat.

42 minutes ago, Bloodporne said:

As a former gun owner myself, I have to ask this though and I'm not being snarky in any way, there's enough of that going on in this thread:

 

Who are you protecting yourself from with that AR-15 as a law abiding citizen? A potential government take-over? Home intruders? The way I see it is that I can't fathom a situation where I would need that variety of gun in a civilized society. If the fear is things becoming not civilized, I'm not standing my ground in my home against a government militia with the aid of this tool. If the government, which I don't trust worth a shit either, decides to "come get me", I'm done, end of story. If it's a home intruder/criminal, does a 12 gauge not do the job? 

 

I don't know anything about hunting but the little I know from my coworkers, many of whom hunt in Upstate NY, I've never heard of something like an AR-15 being used for that purpose? You might've answered that further down the line and I didn't read it but my general question is simply just that, why something as extreme as an AR-15 is necessary when it's been shown to be so easily turned against crowds of people by The Artist Formerly Known As Law Abiding Citizen? There's obviously a clear correlation with America's everything-goes approach to gun and gun culture and its utterly fucking insane gun violence figures. I know you're saying to suspend gun rights of the mentally ill and so on but I mean you have to know that's ultimately just a band aid. 

 

There needs to be a middle ground here, it can't be proponents of guns calling all the shots (no pun intended) because it's their hobby and everyone else is left standing with their proverbial dicks in their hands just because of the 2nd amendment when faced with seemingly never-ending mass shootings. I just can't see how anyone can deny that gun laws absolutely can't remain this Wild West anything-goes it is in many States. I just think the idea of good guy vs. bad guy in the gun debate is incredibly archaic and John Wayne-ish and while I totally understand the need for a heavier gun presence in States like, for example, Wyoming or something compared to NYC, society has, and continues to, move away from old school Americana-isms and this just doesn't make that much sense anymore for me as an outsider looking in. 

I’m not protecting myself with an AR. I use it mostly for target shooting, wolf, and coyote.

40 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

 

Killing animals for entertainment is a moral failing.

We don’t kill them for sport, but no, there is no moral failing in hunting. That’s a ridiculous and wrong headed view of hunting by someone who doesn’t understand it.

8 hours ago, fuckle85 said:

 

I've posted here for a while, just not under this username.

 

Nobody's calling you a gun nut, relax buddy.  And as someone who's also fond nature and animals, I get how there's an understandable appeal of venturing into the natural world, taking in the wonder of it and the beautiful, majestic wildlife (and, in your case, putting some bullets in them), and that in the bigger picture hunting can be more ethical than getting your protein from places like mcdonalds.  

 

As an individual, you and fam might be responsible gun owners, sure, but I think it's odd that I made such a precise argument for why literally putting boomsticks in the hands of children - humans who severely lack the emotional, mental, and physiological maturity to not allow for something to go wrong - is just not a very smart action, tradition or not, supervised or not.  Even if the parent is holding and aiming the firearm and only allowing the child to pull the trigger, I have to be bluntly honest and say it's just kinda weird to me considering how many things can still go wrong and that I find nothing appealing at all about guns or shooting them. 

 

But imo this disagreement shouldn't need to go much further than that because a) even though my stance and reasoning for it is pretty solid, I have no interest in judging how responsible of a gun owner you are or aren't and b) it would probably end up morphing into a debate about gun control in America, which imo is ultimately not the most productive argument to have unless it's with an actual nut to convince them of never owning guns, since the possibility of there being much success in decreasing gun violence via limiting the circulation of firearms/preventing them from getting into the wrong hands clearly seems unlikely at this point.   Best case scenario is probably passing stricter gun laws and over time hope for the best.  Anywho, happy shooting.

You are wrong. Teaching kids responsible gun ownership and hunting skills is one of the best things you can teach them. My son has been target shooting for 5 years. He can bugle for elk, he can shoot effectively, ride horse, he loves the outdoors. Why would any of that be bad? Why is a 400 year old tradition suddenly bad? It’s not.

how many shootings do you see by children of hunters, or hunters themselves? Hardly any, they all happen in cities. It’s not country kids hunting who are killing people. It’s the depressed, angry, city kids struggling to live in these ridiculous environments we’ve created that are shooting people, purposely and accidentally. 

My son knows he can’t use a gun without me. So what are all these horrible things that could happen? Name one? He has a great time and brings home elk? Maybe a sheep or mulie? You are saying all these things can go wrong, but there isn’t.

12 hours ago, johnny said:

If you can’t kill a pack of coyotes with a bow then you need to hit the archery range fella. Damn piss poor hunters and your excuses. 

Have you ever hunted anything? Ever?

8 hours ago, 2user1cup said:

There needs to be one tough guy in the group. Beto+Tough Guy, Gillibard+Tough Guy

 

I think if Clinton had picked someone who wasn't Kaine she would have won, not just the PA fuck up.

Lol, Hillary lost because of Kaine? That’s quite a take.

1 minute ago, CitizenVectron said:

 

I was using your defense of guns to show how people have defended other mistakes from the past, duuuuude.

Here’s the problem about the AR15.

We don’t trust you. It’s not about that gun specifically, it’s about what will the government try to take from us next? Pistols? Long guns? Death by a thousand cuts, that’s why we fight so diligently against restricting legal gun owners. We don’t trust the government not to take a mile. Especially a liberal government looking to appease their base.

the only good thing trump has done is pack the courts with men who will vote to protect our rights.

We will burn this world to the ground, and ourselves with it. We deserve whatever we get.

28 minutes ago, CitizenVectron said:

There's no legit reason except laziness for needing semi-auto, multi-round firearms for hunting. Use a bolt-action if you want to kill an animal. Or a bow if you want to use real skill.

Also, have you ever killed an animal with a gun or a bow? Don’t try to be smart about topics you know nothing about. The most ethical consideration in killing an animal is efficacy. And a gun is always more efficient. I hunt with bow too. And I know a lot of bow hunters. Alot more wounded animals escape from bow hunters than rifle hunters.