Watch Live: Congressional Hearing on IRS Scandal

Live Now on TheBlaze Radio: ‘The Buck Sexton Show’

The Put Up or Shut Up Argument in Gun Control

Mar. 7, 2013 12:36pm

John Barges has written for the Examiner.com and with the King Street Patriots. You can read more of John's writings at www.anobody.com.

[ x ]

anobody@anobody.com

Author's Website

What is not being mentioned in the Main Stream Media is that hunters, many of whom use semi automatic rifles with high capacity magazines, provide more food for the homeless than any other group of people. People in the United States living with food insecurity is growing and can be seen here at a; USDA site on Economic Research Service. America currently has a 15% poverty level which equates to 46.2 million Americans living in poverty. Since 2006 the poverty level rose from 12.3% to its current 15%.

The front page of the Houston Chronicle dated February 6, 2013 ran a headline, “Harris County has plan to bring home the bacon.” The feral hog population in Texas is out of control and in an effort to reduce the population they plan to capture and process hogs to feed the homeless. In Texas tons of pork is donated to homeless shelters and organizations that feed the hungry. With the wild hog population exploding here, the hogs have become a big problem in terms of property and land damage. As explained by one Texas hunter high capacity magazines or even fully automatic machine guns allow the killing of multiple hogs in a group as opposed to only one or possibly two.

Hunters have been quietly donating tons of meat to organizations that feed the hungry for an unspoken number of years. Groups like Hunters Harvest and Hunters for Hungry have been gathering meat donations from hunters via local processing plants. In one year 2011 -2012, 99 meat processors working with Hunters for Hungry provided 152,962 pounds of meat to agencies that feed the hungry. Groups like these are supplied large volumes of game meat from hunting members of organizations like the Safari Club International. A member of the Houston Safari Club reported that hunters in an effort to manage game populations need to cull the herds to insure the health of the animals. This creates harvesting in excess of what the hunters can eat. This led to the donating of meat by the tons to the hungry as in homeless shelters for example.

Many are calling for gun control based on their emotions but the facts weigh in on the side of gun owners. All the anti gun arguers combined don’t have a leg to stand on when it comes to what they do to help the less fortunate in comparison to gun owning hunters in this country. Gun owning hunters clearly let their actions and deeds speak for themselves instead of knee jerk emotions sparked by a tragedy that happen to involve a gun.

When the anti-gun people do for the less fortunate as much as the gun owning hunters do then they may earn the right to be vocal and be seen as having a bit of validity in their arguments. There are hunters feeding the hungry organizations in nearly every state but there seems to be an absence of any anti gun groups that advocate for the hungry in every state. The righteous point always prevails in the end.

Back to The Blaze »

Comments (126)

sinner-saint
Posted on March 8, 2013 at 5:38pm
Yes, here in Texas the 2nd amendment is all about protecting/defending the U.S. Constitution – not hunting. In addition, hunters do feed a lot of people here. We do have a wild pig problem here and their meat is great eating. I keep my freezer stocked with wild pig meat, deer meat, rabbit meat, fish, crab, and shrimp. Many people here like wild pig meat and want it because they can’t afford the prices of regular beef and pork bought at the stores. They ask hunters to kill a pig for them….for meat to feed themselves/their families. And hunters do just that. Five dollars keep me and my family in pork meat for almost a year. Talk about reducing my grocery bill. And we’re not poor either.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- mlimberg
  Posted on March 8, 2013 at 5:53pm
  Arizona too…..
  
  Report this comment
- Excomunicatedmarine
  Posted on March 8, 2013 at 7:30pm
  I know a couple of pigs you can hunt…..but they live in California and probably taste pretty bad as they are 100 % feces.
  
  Report this comment
- NoSleeper
  Posted on March 9, 2013 at 2:43am
  Florida, too..
  
  Report this comment
- virgie morgan
  Posted on March 9, 2013 at 6:35am
  The problem I see with this argument is that the government is going to step in now and make them destroy all that meat and those who were named in this article will have big brother breathing down on them and making it illegal for them to donate that meat to the homeless. obama don’t want anybody feeding the homeless, it makes them less dependent on him. It’s already happened with a place that donated deer meat to a homeless shelter. They came in and through tons of it in the trash and poured bleach on it so that not even the animals could eat it. And this meat had been processed by a packing company and everything. You watch..they will shut down this and any other place that tries to feed the homeless or poor. They’ll make sure to pass a law making it illegal some holiday weekend.
  
  Report this comment
- LakeHartwellSailor
  Posted on March 9, 2013 at 12:03pm
  Virg -
  
  It is already happening
  
  http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/02/25/la-authorities-force-homeless-rescue-mission-to-destroy-8k-of-deer-meat/
  
  Report this comment
- Bum thrower
  Posted on March 9, 2013 at 12:59pm
  The ‘hunting community’ better wake up or they’ll find themselves hunting with bows and arrows; and we know how successful bow hunters are!! What do you call a former bow hunter? fisherman!!
  
  Report this comment
- Blest
  Posted on March 11, 2013 at 1:35pm
  I don’t think this was an attempt to say that the 2nd Amendment was about hunting. I think the article just offers up compelling evidence to combat bad arguments used by gun-control advocates. They often say “Guns are only designed to kill people, they aren’t like cars which have other uses.” This info shows that guns are responsible for donating hundreds of tons of free-range, organic, FRESH meat to feed the homeless. Most Americans don’t even get that quality of meat at restaurants.
  
  Report this comment
Keatonc333
Posted on March 8, 2013 at 5:28pm
ya I don’t think hunting is the best way to defend owning a semi automatic weapon. I mean if you are an awful hunter with terrible aim you might need one. But a little practice could work just as well. As for feeding the hungry.. GOOD JOB hunters!
Log in to ReplyReply
- love the kids
  Posted on March 8, 2013 at 5:40pm
  You don’t have a clue, do you? The first shot may kill a hog, which usually travel in groups, but then the hogs scatter very quickly. So quick shots are how to get multiple hogs. Like any liberal, you didn’t think 2 minutes ahead.
  
  Report this comment
- Keatonc333
  Posted on March 8, 2013 at 5:44pm
  That doesn’t seem like hunting though.. thats just killing for fun. Its shooting fish in a barrel. no strategy, no gamesmanship involved.
  
  Report this comment
- Finger Follie
  Posted on March 8, 2013 at 6:07pm
  The wild hog population is out of control. They are destroying acres and acres of farmland, golf courses, residential neighborhoods, basically everything in their paths. Not to mention they are dangerous. There is no need for “gamesmanship” in dealing with the wild hog problem. So yea, it is like “shooting fish in a barrel” with good reason.
  
  Report this comment
- Finger Follie
  Posted on March 8, 2013 at 6:08pm
  Now pass me some bacon…
  
  Report this comment
- Keatonc333
  Posted on March 8, 2013 at 6:17pm
  ya, but you can not make the argument that a semi automatic weapon is the only tool for the job.
  
  Report this comment
- Fubared
  Posted on March 8, 2013 at 6:54pm
  Coat lil Keatie in peanut butter, let the boars and hogs come in, then not hunt the pigs at all. Fun!
  
  Report this comment
- Dachande
  Posted on March 8, 2013 at 7:18pm
  Keatonc333,
  
  Read Miller vs US and the subsequent cases.
  
  The ready militia, which is the citizenry, need some form of compatibility with our weapon systems for national defense. It’s in the language of the decisions. Hence a sawed off shotgun was deemed sufficient to ban because it was not compatible with current weapons in the uniformed services at the time. Regardless of likelihood for argument sake, it’s a matter of combat readiness for the defense of the nation and the militia kind of needs readiness protections from your ignorance and those who share it.
  
  As for huntng and pest control, shouldn’t you be playing in traffic some where?
  
  Report this comment
- MK2
  Posted on March 8, 2013 at 7:25pm
  Keaton
  You have have got to be one of the biggest idiots that post on the blaze.Do you have any common sence do you even read before you post ?You obvious have no clue about hunting.A hunter might use his muzzle loader to go deer hunting (witch is one shot and let me explain to you in detal so please read real slow so you can understand you may have to read it a few times but thats ok how that works is first you measure your powder pour it down the barrel then you place a patch over the barrel then you place a lead ball on the patch then you start the ball down the barrel then you take your ramrod then finish pushing the ball down the barrel till you seat the ball the you pull the ramrod out of the barrel then you take a percussion cap and put it on the nipple then when you see a deer then you **** the hammer mount your riffle take aim then squeeze the trigger )that same hunter might want to help the land owner with some problem hogs on his property that could be costing him thousands of dollers so he is not going to take his muzzle loader even tho he is a good shot and only needs one shot when deer hunting what he is trying to do is help the land owner from property damage so he is going to take a riffle with lots of ammo so he can shot as many as he can because once the shooting starts they scatter they will not likely regroup and give the hunter another chance that day so he must come back another day so the hunter wants to take full advantage while he is there
  
  Report this comment
- OlderCowGirl
  Posted on March 8, 2013 at 7:52pm
  @keaton33,
  
  If/when the day comes that you libs can guarantee us that the enemies (robbers, rapists, killers, etc) do NOT AND NEVER WILL have guns or magazines bigger than mine…then I’ll be happy to give up my big-terrible-magazines for the 10-clip. Somehow I think that’s impossible, however.
  
  Have you ever heard of the “Underground for criminals”?
  Yup…I didn’t think so..
  
  Report this comment
- MK2
  Posted on March 8, 2013 at 7:54pm
  Keaton
  Don’t get to excited about nipple, cocking, ramrod,aiming, shooting in my previous post I was referring to muzzle loader and the art of muzzle loading shooting
  
  Report this comment
- valiant1776
  Posted on March 8, 2013 at 11:34pm
  Keaton You have probably never hunted, much less, hunted with a semi-automatic rifle, so STFU. BTW, hunting with a semi-automatic hangun would still be legal, if semi-automatic rifles are banned. They shoot at the same rate. One shot per pull of the trigger. Your arguments fail on every end. You’re an idiot. Ever used a double action revolver? They shoot like semit-automatic handguns. They’re often used for snake hunting. You obviously know nothing but what liberal bloggers post from their mother’s basement. You’re an idiot.
  
  Report this comment
- Dark_Night
  Posted on March 9, 2013 at 6:48am
  Everyone doesn’t hunt for fun and sport, some people only want to put meat on the table. In those instances it’s really no different than what goes on when domestic animals are slaughtered, people just want an effect means to do the job at hand.
  
  Report this comment
- pickupyurcross
  Posted on March 9, 2013 at 9:20am
  Keaton, though the article is about hunting, the 2nd Amendment is not. People always focus on the last part of it, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” It’s the first part of that amendment that tells us why though, and it says nothing about hunting: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state…” Not hunting, but, “being necessary to the security of a free state…” Our founders knew that our government would someday become too big and try to take liberties and freedoms from Americans; that’s what governments do. THAT, is why the 2nd Amendment is there. I intend to defend it. Accept it or not, you’re welcome.
  
  Report this comment
- Touche Turtle
  Posted on March 9, 2013 at 10:08am
  So now the “experts” on hunting can weigh in with their progressive opinions . . . . do you even OWN a gun much less hunt with one? Just curious!!!!
  
  Report this comment
- PunkinSniper
  Posted on March 9, 2013 at 10:36am
  Look. I really don’t want to sound rude, but you sound really uninformed on this. I mean no disrespect, but you clearly have no experience dealing with this problem. It is a problem,mind you, these animals are large, crafty, dangerous and destructive. A semi auto is a good choice for the job because these guys roam in a pack. Hit one, best be ready to hit many or risk being run down by 500lbs. Of pissed off tusked nightmare. This is not fun. This is not “Cabelas Dangerous Game” on XBOX.
  Just like anything else, you choose the right tool for the job. In this case, reach for the carbine with the iron sights and a couple mags and leave the bolt action in the safe.
  
  Report this comment
- dwilco77
  Posted on March 9, 2013 at 1:52pm
  You obviously have no idea what a semi automatic weapon. I have become quite amused at the 100% response I get when someone is arguing that people do not need semi automatic weapons, that when I ask them if they know what semi automatic means, they have no idea. Even when you try to explain to them that it is one bullet per trigger pull, they look at you like a deer caught in the headlights. Liberals talking, and thinking out of their butts. It is getting old, dealing with these gray matter deficient beings.
  
  Report this comment
- Gretzky17
  Posted on March 9, 2013 at 2:21pm
  Keaton, just admit you want no one to own. I have a 22(gopher gun) that is semi auto, made in 1961, holds 18 tube load. You have never hunted. Really a deer at at 300 yards with a 25-06 and you think I should have one shot? Not humane if not clean, most times yes one to two shots is what you get off. Deer run faster than 40 if I hit the leg, and have bolt action deer will die a slow painful death and more than likely be taken apart by a coyote(s). But than again you probably feed the in your back yard and don’t see a correlation when your neighbors garden gets raided and a guy gets hurt or killed hitting one on the highway
  
  Report this comment
- David-FL
  Posted on March 9, 2013 at 3:18pm
  MK2. lol. Hilarious!!!!!! Nice!
  
  Report this comment
- JackSprat
  Posted on March 10, 2013 at 2:18pm
  Keatonc333: It is not about hunting and don’t try to control the narrative. “Shall not be infringed” means exactly what it says. I am a NRA life member and a hunter. I always take my time in aiming so as to not injure the quarry and have to track. One shot kills are the preferred way to bag game but they are not always possible. You know nothing about the meaning of the 2nd amendment or for the purpose of the NRA. Your lack of knowledge is abysmal and you should read up on the subject before making any comments that cannot be back up with facts. The 2nd amendment makes the 1st amendment possible.
  
  Report this comment
wopalope
Posted on March 8, 2013 at 5:23pm
So when do “we..the people.” march on Congress?
(It will do no good to march on the WH.)

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- THX-1138
  Posted on March 9, 2013 at 12:51pm
  It will do no good to march *anywhere*. We’re way past that point…
  
  Report this comment
OllieK
Posted on March 8, 2013 at 5:22pm
John Barges writes: “When the anti-gun people do for the less fortunate as much as the gun owning hunters do then they may earn the right to be vocal and be seen as having a bit of validity in their arguments.” WTF? Wrong, wrong, wrong. NOTHING will validate their arguments. Besides, if you ask them, they will say they are redistributing wealth to the disadvantaged, including the homeless. It’s just a stupid (there, I’ve said it) argument to say that something a person does for a group of people can effectively nullify the Second Amendment. What is wrong with these people??!!!!

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Keatonc333
  Posted on March 8, 2013 at 6:34pm
  I do agree it is a stupid argument, except for different reasons. 1. Charity is completely irrelevant in the con control debate. 2. The people in government actively working for gun control supply more aid to the less fortunate in a week then these hunters would in a decade.
  
  Report this comment
- Excomunicatedmarine
  Posted on March 8, 2013 at 7:40pm
  Pretty obvious you and 1/2 of 666 got no clue. Just like some retarted 5 year old mule you get an idea in your mind from someone else, claim it as your’s and right or wrong make up anything you can, logical or not, to try and support the unsupportable/
  
  Do You know what a mule is ? Have you even ever been someplace where there is no concrete ?
  
  Report this comment
- OlderCowGirl
  Posted on March 8, 2013 at 8:03pm
  @keaton33,
  
  Are you kidding? You said: ” 2. The people in government actively working for gun control supply more aid to the less fortunate in a week then these hunters would in a decade.”.
  
  Would that be with our tax money? Hmmmm???
  
  We totally understand the concept of government supplying aid to the less fortunate…but it doesn’t just come out of “those government workers” paychecks. It also comes out of our paychecks to fund abortions, obama-phones, welfare for the lazy, and stupid pet projects.
  
  Give us a break…we’re not that damn stupid.
  
  Report this comment
- pickupyurcross
  Posted on March 9, 2013 at 9:35am
  Keaton, surely you don’t mean with their own personable tax donations, but instead with mine and yours? Since you said this: “2. The people in government actively working for gun control supply more aid to the less fortunate in a week then these hunters would in a decade.” I’ll just include the 2011 charitable contributions for your “leader” Biden, since he was put in charge of all of this by Obama.
  
  http://www.forbes.com/sites/baldwin/2011/04/18/biden-tax-return-charitable-donations-on-the-low-side/
  
  Wow. 1.4%!! How can there be so many hungry people in America when he gives so much? I would have to DECREASE my giving by 10% just to give that little. I made less than a third of what he did in 2011, but gave twice as much as he did. Tell me….who did more?
  
  Report this comment
- jonjon
  Posted on March 10, 2013 at 12:47am
  keaton . You are wrong , unless these people in government are taking the money out of their own pockets to give to the needy , but they are not , they are using taxpayers money , and a lot of it . So I would think these hunters , along with paying taxes are doing far more than the government workers you mention
  
  Report this comment
nighttrainno9
Posted on March 8, 2013 at 5:22pm
I am going to make it real simple for you govt. idiots, if you try to take
my weapons I will shoot you, if you try to take my property, I will shoot you.
What part of that don’t you understand.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Keatonc333
  Posted on March 8, 2013 at 5:41pm
  So lets say you have a semi automatic rifle, 2 hand guns and a shot gun… and the government says that you must turn in your assault rifle. (which by the way, confiscation is not in any legislation on gun control) you would kill them and then be arrested or killed yourself, instead of just going from 4 to 3 guns? after all I have heard many times here that a hand gun can be just as effective as an assault rifle..
  
  Report this comment
- nighttrainno9
  Posted on March 8, 2013 at 5:56pm
  No you idiot (keaton) I will not give up any guns, and they won’t be arresting
  me either. I will not be a slave, it’s either FREE or DEAD, get the picture.
  
  Report this comment
- Keatonc333
  Posted on March 8, 2013 at 6:06pm
  Well, to each his own..
  
  Report this comment
- proliance
  Posted on March 8, 2013 at 7:09pm
  Keaton, Feinstein’s bill says you cannot sell or transfer the ownership of your “assault rifle.” It would be illegal to leave your expensive firearm collection to your children in your will. The govt. would come and collect them to be destroyed.
  
  Report this comment
- Dachande
  Posted on March 8, 2013 at 7:29pm
  Keatonc333,
  
  A simple mathematical agrument of, “why is 4 minus 1 so bad?” is really petty. I’m not advocating anyone get into a firefight, but it is an extremely emotional issue, especially when statistics and history are not on your side.
  
  Aside from the fact that “gun control” does not work and by that virtue alone people like you should shut up and stay away from my liberty and property, I pointed out that there is Supreme Court precedent for the militia (ie American citizens) to have compatibility with modern military service rifles for the common defense of the nation. Look it up objectively and from a legal point of view.
  
  If the innocent children who lost their lives in the Sandy Hook masacre we should be outraged by this political farse. Wasn’t the point we should protect our most innocent and helpless, you know, children? This does nothing and is a pinko politicians wet dream to extort. Yes I said it, I am sick of politicians extorting the deaths of little children and you really should find some shame for going along with it.
  
  Report this comment
- Excomunicatedmarine
  Posted on March 8, 2013 at 7:43pm
  333, shame = oxymoron
  
  Report this comment
- Chancellor
  Posted on March 9, 2013 at 1:28am
  You are finally seeing the light Keton. I myself would lure them into a trap so I can get them all.
  
  I will die standing on my feet fighting for my Constitutional rights that on my knees as a slave. Ask the blacks how slavery was? then ask if they are ready to go back to it?
  
  If the local LEO are going to come for my weapons than I hope they don’t have young kids and wives. Because if they hurt my wife or kids then this gets real uncivil. They better hide they’res cause I show you murder on a grand scale!
  
  Report this comment
- pickupyurcross
  Posted on March 9, 2013 at 9:44am
  Keaton, (sorry to keep picking on you) you said, ” (which by the way, confiscation is not in any legislation on gun control)”
  
  Maybe not yet anyway, but they started by limiting the magazines (not clips) to 10, now they want 7 or 5. But again, we go back to the 2nd Amendment…”SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.” Which part of that do you not understand?
  
  Report this comment
- pickupyurcross
  Posted on March 9, 2013 at 9:57am
  Oh yeah Keaton, I meant to include this in my reply.
  
  In an interview with Gwen Ifill of PBS’s Newshour, Dianne Feinstein said this, “If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them — Mr. & Mrs. America, turn them all in — I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren’t here.”
  
  Do not give them an inch….
  
  Report this comment
- LakeHartwellSailor
  Posted on March 9, 2013 at 12:12pm
  Keat -
  
  7 rifles, six handguns and counting……oh….and one Biden approved shotgun
  
  Report this comment
- micko77
  Posted on March 9, 2013 at 3:03pm
  A note of caution, not a personal jab… refering to an intent to kill a government agent can be easily turned into an argument for a “terrorist” label. Nobody wants that drone finding them at the local Denny’s…. but we all know that nobody from the Atty. General’s office is checking and backtracking this site, right?
  
  Report this comment
walmpus1
Posted on March 8, 2013 at 5:19pm
We also have another wild hog problem, but its located in DC. Who else besides me is ready to use our high capcity magazies that are used to feed our semi automatics to cull the heard of politicians in DC because I am tired this #(@*#*$()!

wcb

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Keatonc333
  Posted on March 8, 2013 at 5:37pm
  However I do have a problem with the last 2 paragraphs of this story.. mainly
  
  “Many are calling for gun control based on their emotions but the facts weigh in on the side of gun owners. All the anti gun arguers combined don’t have a leg to stand on when it comes to what they do to help the less fortunate in comparison to gun owning hunters in this country.”
  and…
  “When the anti-gun people do for the less fortunate as much as the gun owning hunters do then they may earn the right to be vocal and be seen as having a bit of validity in their arguments.”
  
  First! helping the less fortunate is completely irrelevant to the discussion of gun control.. It’s like saying that pro-life people don’t have a leg to stand on because they do not adopt as much as pro choice people.. Also there are no statistics for soup kitchen volunteers, churches, schools, etc etc who donate food regularly.. should we now ask every person who donates food if they believe gun control is right or wrong? Honestly this is a terrible article completely absent of any important facts.
  John Barges… you should be ashamed and embarrassed to call yourself a journalist.
  
  Report this comment
- Keatonc333
  Posted on March 8, 2013 at 5:42pm
  sorry.. that wasn’t supposed to be posted under you.
  
  Report this comment
Uechi
Posted on March 8, 2013 at 5:00pm
For the 50 millionith time they are not high capacity magazines. They are normal capacity magazines for those firearms. Exactly what dufus determined otherwise?. If 10 rounds is not high capacity how about 11 or 12? Why not only 5 round or perhaps 1 round mags. What’s the friggin magic number? This is such horse hockey from lying, corrupt filth that have destroyed this nation and now want to makes us unarmed slaves totally dependent on them.Not going happen!

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
ltb
Posted on March 8, 2013 at 4:49pm
The Second Amendment is not about hunting, it’s about protecting ourselves from tyrants. Every time Conservatives let Liberals change the argument, we lose and they know that, which is why they do it all of the time.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- decendentof56
  Posted on March 8, 2013 at 5:15pm
  LBT…
  Yes, the fact that the Progressives have been able to dictate the argument is very frustrating. As you read posts on various sites, you can see that the over-reaching has infuriated average, peace-loving , gun-owning Americans.
  We are at the point at which we will no longer tolerate politicians like Graham and McCain. Those two are part of the problem with regards to allowing the discussion to be manipulated. I’ve had it with them!
  
  Report this comment
Endstatism
Posted on March 8, 2013 at 4:45pm
If you read many of the proposed gun bans, many of them violate other constitutional rights such as the Fourth, Fifth, Tenth and Fourteenth Amendments. If the government can take your guns away without compensation, what is to keep them at a future date from taking other property away including your home without payment? If the ex post facto clause can be ignored, it will greatly enhance the power of government.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Lt_Scrounge
  Posted on March 8, 2013 at 10:59pm
  You mean like forcing you to accept 29 cents on the dollar for your secured bonds in a corporation solely for the purpose of turning your bought and paid for property over to their political supporters in the UAW? That wouldn’t happen now would it? Oh wait it did happen when Obamao and crew overrode the bankruptcy laws to hand control of GM and Chrysler to the UAW instead of the bond holders getting their just compensation for the monies that they had lent the two companies. Obamao et al didn’t bail out GM or Chrysler, they bailed out the UAW at the expense of the bond holders, you know those rich pension plans like the Indiana State Teachers’ Pension plan that was almost destroyed when it happened.
  
  Report this comment
- micko77
  Posted on March 9, 2013 at 3:15pm
  Ex post facto….. where does the Domestic Violence issue come in on that one? I can think of 2 local police officers who jad been charged with domestic battery or assault which, at the time (early ’80′s) was a misdemeanor. Then we get a new and improved law that takes their plea-bargained “conviction” agreed to by all parties as the easier, cheaper way to resolve the issue… but the law now forbids these officers from owning a firearm. Keep in mind that in various states “Domestic Abuse” could be self-defense, throwing a pillow, slapping the couch alongside the “injured” party… but rights null and void. Overnight, a new class of criminals had been created for what had happened 5-35 years prior. All that said, the original article is about how much hunters have “skin in the game”; this is a valid argument, but not for the Second Amendment, more for limiting Federal government overreach into State business, a 10th Amendment issue– all moot, as this Administration wipes itself with the Constitution and its Amendments.
  
  Report this comment
The_Fifth_Column
Posted on March 8, 2013 at 4:37pm
We don’t need to give reasons or excuses why we own our weapons. It’s our “RIGHT”. A Right that can not be infringed upon………PERIOD. There is nothing to argue here.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- tonypro
  Posted on March 8, 2013 at 4:46pm
  Exactly, how difficult is it to understand such a truly simplistic concept as “shall not be infringed”?
  
  Report this comment
- Excomunicatedmarine
  Posted on March 8, 2013 at 8:09pm
  Our Rights come from God. The constitution simply affirms some of them. All mankind has the right to defend his family, friends, country. Period. Against any one who tries to hurt, kill, or enslave us.
  
  Report this comment
Lucius Severus Pertinax
Posted on March 8, 2013 at 4:31pm
The REAL “put up or shut up” argument is:
“If you try to take our guns, they will be turned upon you; because we know what you have planned for us after you have done so.”

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
wmcritter
Posted on March 8, 2013 at 4:28pm
There is only one argument against gun control: freedom. I have the basic human right to own private property, and government or private citizen may deprive me of that property. Whether the property is land, cars, computers, socks, guns, or anything else, it is all the same. It is private property, and nobody can every ban it or confiscate it. That is the ONLY thing argument that matters.
It angers me that so many people play the left’s game and try to debate about safety or crime or hunting, or anything else. All of those are irrelevant, the only thing that matters is the basic human right to own private property, and that is the only argument we have to put forth.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Inform
Posted on March 8, 2013 at 4:27pm
The problem is that “poverty” is not really “poverty” these days.

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/07/what-is-poverty

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
NOTYERHUCKLEBERRY
Posted on March 8, 2013 at 4:15pm
Any law that restricts ownership of weapons of any kind is an infringement on the Second Amendment. The context of it being that anything the government can own, so can I. Why do you think so many fear your weapons? Simple, they can’t rule you when you are armed.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- alvinator2u
  Posted on March 8, 2013 at 4:32pm
  Great comment totally spot on!
  
  Report this comment
- Trigus
  Posted on March 8, 2013 at 4:43pm
  People, People, People, it is not only the 2nd Amendment at Stake here. It is the Sovereign Rights of States. Most Pro American States that do not willfully Infringe on the Rights of Americans have a Section in their State Constitution defining even further the US 2nd Amendment for their Citizens. Most States define Right to Bear Arms as: to defend oneself, their property, their State.
  
  2013 American Patriot Spring, What will you do?
  
  The distinctions between Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, and Independents are no more. I Am Not A Republican, But An American! – Sons of Liberty
  
  Report this comment
- Keatonc333
  Posted on March 8, 2013 at 6:19pm
  So you think each citizen should have access to a nuclear weapon? a drone, missiles and rocket launchers?
  
  Report this comment
- Fubared
  Posted on March 8, 2013 at 6:56pm
  Lil keatie, how about what ever is man portable? That would be a flare gun for you, leave the adults to pick what they deem fit for the occasion. Moron comes to mind again, just like all your posts.
  
  Report this comment
- Excomunicatedmarine
  Posted on March 8, 2013 at 8:11pm
  Keaton…..why not. You think Obama can make a better decision than I ? Are you nuts ?
  
  Report this comment
- LakeHartwellSailor
  Posted on March 9, 2013 at 12:19pm
  Keat -
  
  To answer your question, the answer is a resounding YES!
  
  Report this comment
tbconrad
Posted on March 8, 2013 at 4:12pm
Soon we won’t be able to hunt the King’s dear or feral pigs. Some places are already banning feeding the homeless unless you’re the government so I don’t expect this reasoning to survive long under the new paradigm.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- 338lapua
  Posted on March 8, 2013 at 5:58pm
  First, you are 100% correct. Anyone who thinks the government owns all the wealth certainly believes he owns all the resources. Second you make a fabulous point about the second. As much as we LOVE and CHERISH our hunting heritage, that is not what the second is all about. Read up on it patriots! Do not let ANYONE change the argument about our second amendment, it has nothing to do with hunting.
  
  Report this comment
countryfirst
Posted on March 8, 2013 at 4:11pm
I for one will not willingly step on the bus to the politically correct wording of re-education camps, also known as death camps.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
The_Cabrito_Goat
Posted on March 8, 2013 at 4:09pm
Hmm, allow the poor to hunt for their own food. It’s actually quite brilliant.

“Why don’t you want the poor to have food? Do you hate the poor? Do you want them to starve?”

Hahaha this is a game changer.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- pragmaticpatriot
  Posted on March 8, 2013 at 5:02pm
  Teach a person to fish and hunt and the DNC lose a voter
  
  Report this comment
- decendentof56
  Posted on March 8, 2013 at 5:23pm
  @Goat…..“Why don’t you want the poor to have food? Do you hate the poor? Do you want them to starve?”
  Good one! And in that comment, you’ve alluded to the trick progressives have used for 50 years. Try to have a serious discussion on why, for example, the welfare system destroys families, and you are instantly against the poor. Its an old trick, and one we Patriots need to practice.
  This video explains how they have done it.
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlpODYhnPEo
  
  Report this comment
tbconrad
Posted on March 8, 2013 at 4:09pm
Add your comments

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
wcsmithiii
Posted on March 8, 2013 at 4:05pm
I say again, You have missed the point by miles. Open your eyes and look around. It is NOT gun control. It is NOT weight control. It IS about PEOPLE CONTROL…..The guns, weight, minimum pay are merely ways of obtaining TOTAL CONTROL. W-A-K-E—-U-P. Make the DC idiots understand you work for me and like a good employer, if you don’t work FOR me, I will replace you.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Fubared
  Posted on March 8, 2013 at 4:20pm
  Well put.
  
  Report this comment
- Durvy
  Posted on March 9, 2013 at 7:00pm
  Well put.
  
  Report this comment
MisterSarcastic
Posted on March 8, 2013 at 4:02pm
The people who want our guns don’t care about stories like this. It won’t even embarrass them. They will submit a theory which they think is somehow morally superior to feeding hungry people. They just want our guns.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Kiba
Posted on March 8, 2013 at 3:59pm
Great article but you seem like you actually think they (gun grabbers) actually give a steaming pile about hungry and impoverished americans,all they want is our guns. Why? Because they think they are dangerous and too many people are being killed by them? No, they want them because we like them that’s why. The end justifies the means with them, let a million kids go to bed with hunger pains who cares lets just take their guns! If anyone cared about innocent kids getting killed they would stomp the gangs into the ground, and would have a long time ago.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
00100111
Posted on March 8, 2013 at 3:50pm
Cue the usual gun banner’s mantra “But, but, but, but…we’re not trying to ban them, we just don’t want you to have that one, or that one, or that one, or that one, or that one, or that one, or that one, or that one, or that one, or that one, or that one, or that one, or that one, or that one, or that one, or that one, or that one, or that one, or that one, or that one, or that one, or that one, or that one, or that one, or that one, or that one, or that one, or that one, or that one, or that one, or that one, or that one, or that one, or that one, or that one, or that one, or that one, or that one, or that one, or that one, or that one, or that one, or that one, or that one, or that one, or that one, or that one, or that one, or that one, or that one, or that one, or that one, or that one, or that one, or that one, or that one, or that one, or that one, or that one, or that one, or that one, or that one, or that one, or that one, or that one, or that one, or that one, or that one, or that one, or that one, or that one, or that one, or that one, or that one, or that one, or that one, or that one, or that one, or that one, or that one, or that one, or that one, or that one, or that one, or that one, or that one, or that one, or that one, or that one, or that one, or that one, or that one, or that one, or that one, or that one, or that one, or that one, or that one, or that one, or that one, or that one, or that one, or that one, or that one, or that one, or that one…

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Snaker
Posted on March 8, 2013 at 9:44am
The 2nd Amendment is NOT about hunting… Or feeding the homeless…

It IS about defending AGAINST a tyrannical government.
Our forefathers had it right… They were smarter than the 5th grader in the “what-house.”
They knew from whence they had cometh, and the government they fled. King-O is
the “new-George.”

Put up, or shut up….

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- GuruMeditation
  Posted on March 8, 2013 at 4:00pm
  Agreed. They just destroyed a bunch perfectly fine venison donated to the homeless by hunters recently, so what are they trying to say? Has nothing to do with hunting or the homeless.
  
  Report this comment
wilbstal
Posted on March 7, 2013 at 6:35pm
2nd amendment is clearly written and defined, simple black on white. shall not be infringed. no one in the World can show me on the 2nd amenment where it says anything about magazine capacitys or sizes on ammo storge devices or types of weapons. Our forefathers woud have wanted us to have equal or better weapons than what the Tryanical Governmet Agents would have. If you come for the Guns you will be shot thats the law of the land. stay home and live happy mind your business and dont infringe.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Ponyexpress
Posted on March 7, 2013 at 3:25pm
No, the “put up or shut up” on gun control is the second amendement. Period.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply

It appears that you have Javascript Disabled. Please enable Javascript in your browser preferences for a better user experience on TheBlaze. You can not comment without Javascript enabled.