Texas Bans Remote Hunting

On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 23:12:47 -0400, Galen Hekhuis
<ghekhuis@earthlink.net> wrote:

>On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 22:02:35 -0400, JOF <johnfrancis@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>>I mean "pro" as being in favour of.
>
>In favor of guns or in favor of the right to keep and bear arms?

Yes to both.

>>Why do you read it in those terms? I said I didn't believe all gun
>>owners were head cases. That meant a large proportion in my mind. You
>>apparently read it as a large proportion were. Is your glass half
>>empty or half full?
>
>It is all the way empty, I'll have another while you're up, thank you. I
>don't know why I read it that way exactly, except that you would probably
>be a tad uncomfortable if I were to proclaim that I don't believe that all
>Canadians are head cases. Does is make it any better if I say that in my
>mind that means that a large proportion of Canadians are not nuts? So
>how's your glass?

I live here and I'll be the first to concede we have our share of
headcases, some of them even homicidal. It doesn't even take a high
degree of objectivity to admit that, so I'd be a fool to be offended
by a true statement, and a bigger fool to insist it just ain't so.

My glass is actually a coffee mug, and at the risk of sounding like a
cynic, it's damned near empty. But that's fine. I gotta run to the
office anyway.

>>So which is the objective approach?
>
>Therein lies the rub. As Jimmy Buffet said: "Don't ever forget that you
>just might wind up being wrong." If you have trouble discerning what is
>objective you might also expect to have some trouble with "reasonable."

I get nervous when we start applying Jimmy's philosphy in the cold
light of day. I survived the 60's and 70's. The jury's still out on
him. 8)

>>Perhaps. I know a few gun owners who haven't helped the cause as well.
>
>I know a few whites who haven't helped the white supremacy cause either.

We all have our crosses to bear. No pun intended.

>>Like you say, it's a lack of objectivity that often causes the
>>problems.
>
>Did I say that? I'll be darned. It's so rare that I string even three
>words together that make any sense. A whole thought? Even I am impressed,
>but then, I'm easily impressed.

I thought that's what you said. I think yer brighter than you give
yerself credit for. There's a lot of that going around. For what it's
worth, I like your style.

JF

JOF wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 07:21:02 -0500, Joe English
> <jenglish@wisperhome.com> wrote:
>
>
>> paraplegics can only be paralyzed form the waist down
>
>
> I was under the impression it can involve the entire trunk of the
> body, not just the legs. I've been wrong before though.
>
> JF
>
>
you may be more correct - maybe just semantics either way a bummer

"Lee Bell" <leebell@ix.remove.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:vzK5e.6068$44.2255@newsread1.news.atl.earthli nk.net...
> "JOF" wrote
>
> >>Both moves are in response to an operation run by John Lockwood of San
> >>Antonio, who has developed a rifle equipped with a camera that can be
> >>controlled via the Internet. He has said customers are using his Web
site
> >>for target shooting and that he planned to offer hunts for live animals.
> >
> > I believe the Second Amendment covers that. The "Shall not be
> > infringed" part is evidently sacrosanct annd inviolable.
>
> I don't believe those words are used in conjunction with "killing."
>
> Do you have a problem with remote hunting? If somebody that can not
travel
> to Texas, legally obtains a hunting license from Texas and kills an animal
> that he would legally be allowed to shoot if he were physically present,
> does that create more of a problem for you than the hunter that is
> physically present?
>
> Lee

Not so long as someone is available to immediately tag said animal.

On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 13:37:36 -0400, JOF <johnfrancis@sympatico.ca> wrote:

>I live here and I'll be the first to concede we have our share of
>headcases, some of them even homicidal. It doesn't even take a high
>degree of objectivity to admit that, so I'd be a fool to be offended
>by a true statement, and a bigger fool to insist it just ain't so.

What I was trying to point out is that starting out a sentence with
something like "I know most gun owners are not nuts..." is kinda damning
with faint praise. It's really kind of a minor point, but it does
illustrate a point of view. It isn't so much that some gun owners are nuts
as it is that some nuts own guns. But you somehow link gun ownership with
(granted, a small percentage of) nut cases. Homeowners, landowners, boat
owners, car owners, and yes, gun owners. Are any of them monolithic? Can
we produce anything meaningful from classifying people by their
possessions?

>My glass is actually a coffee mug, and at the risk of sounding like a
>cynic, it's damned near empty. But that's fine. I gotta run to the
>office anyway.

Now that we are being picky, I actually drink out of the bottle, I don'
need no steenkin' glass.

>I get nervous when we start applying Jimmy's philosphy in the cold
>light of day. I survived the 60's and 70's. The jury's still out on
>him. 8)

Don't connect it with Jimmy then. Just remember that you just might be
wrong, horribly wrong. I'd be willing to bet you have been dead wrong
before, I know I have. What makes you think you might be immune now?

Galen Hekhuis NpD, JFR, GWA ghekhuis@earthlink.net
Illiterate? Write for FREE help

"JOF" <johnfrancis@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:9vbl51p132ci98ck6jtseedem0q1m331l8@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 23:18:15 -0400, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick"
> <Buzcutt454@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >>And do you speak for all gun owners?
> >
> >
> > I only speak for one.
> >
> > There isn't a single gunner here, that I'm aware of, that agrees with
me.
>
> That's probably unfortunate, because I think you have the right idea
> about and the right training for the proper use of guns.
> So how do they all not agree with you?

Firstly, none of my precepts of self defense are based on the 2nd
Amendment.

I'm glad that current interpretation is on our side, but if it ever isn't,
I won't give a damn.

Other than that, you'd have to ask them.

Mostly it has to do with licensing of owners.

Either the kids and psychos and felons, and foreigners, IIRC, have a right
to be armed,

Or you have to create a system of ownership regulation.

Simple as that.


--
One million Marines cannot seize Tarawa in a thousand years.
Admiral Keiji Shibasaki, 4 days before his death.

On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 15:33:05 -0400, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick"
<Buzcutt454@aol.com> wrote:

>

>> That's probably unfortunate, because I think you have the right idea
>> about and the right training for the proper use of guns.
>> So how do they all not agree with you?
>
> Firstly, none of my precepts of self defense are based on the 2nd
>Amendment.
>
> I'm glad that current interpretation is on our side, but if it ever isn't,
>I won't give a damn.
>
> Other than that, you'd have to ask them.
>
> Mostly it has to do with licensing of owners.
>
> Either the kids and psychos and felons, and foreigners, IIRC, have a right
>to be armed,
>
> Or you have to create a system of ownership regulation.
>
> Simple as that.

That sounds right to me.

JF

"JOF" <johnfrancis@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:a4kl51pk21qj9e0gn81pijn1ih58dj99f2@4ax.com...

>
> I've often admitted that I've been known to be wrong, even dead wrong,
> although I'm not sure "horribly" is warranted here. It's just that, my
> clumsy attempts at articulating my own arguments aside, I have trouble
> believing I'm 100% wrong all the time,

We don't think that, why should you?

> or even most of the time, and
> so far there have been few cogent arguments to convince me otherwise.
> I may well be wrong about some things, but when I talk about my own
> feelings, emotions, thoughts or opinions on issues which obviously
> have many points of view, how can I be 100% wrong? Just because two
> people disagree on something doesn't mean either has to be wrong.
> Often it's only a matter of perspective and perception.
>
> That being said I promise to play nice, to be more diplomatic and try
> harder to avoid offending folks here. So, for the record, I believe
> only an almost immeasurably miniscule percentage of hunters are
> blood-crazed deviants or whatever I'm accused of saying (although I
> still believe most of them wear camo duds),

Thirty posts later.

>I believe that the number
> of gun owners who are homicidal maniacs is small enough to be
> statistically irrelevant, I do not underestimate the intellectual
> capacity of most rec.scubans, and I believe most Canucks who don't
> feel any need to be armed are not naive fools.

Nobody called you a fool.



--
One million Marines cannot seize Tarawa in a thousand years.
Admiral Keiji Shibasaki, 4 days before his death.

On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 16:06:14 -0400, JOF <johnfrancis@sympatico.ca> wrote:

>I've often admitted that I've been known to be wrong, even dead wrong,
>although I'm not sure "horribly" is warranted here. It's just that, my
>clumsy attempts at articulating my own arguments aside, I have trouble
>believing I'm 100% wrong all the time, or even most of the time, and
>so far there have been few cogent arguments to convince me otherwise.
>I may well be wrong about some things, but when I talk about my own
>feelings, emotions, thoughts or opinions on issues which obviously
>have many points of view, how can I be 100% wrong? Just because two
>people disagree on something doesn't mean either has to be wrong.
>Often it's only a matter of perspective and perception.

For example: If you deny someone a gun for defense because of your
beliefs, and you turn out to be wrong, you could quite easily be horribly
wrong. And you don't even have to be 100% wrong. I won't try to justify
gun ownership, that is done in many venues by people far more articulate
than I. I will say though that there is a terrible downside to gun
legislation if it is wrong, and things aren't that rosy even in the gun
free utopia that some envision. What is clear is that legislation isn't
doing very much, it is time to try something else. Who knows? Maybe a
mandatory shooting program to be admitted to a movie with gunshots, so
people can get a feel for what a gun really is? Education in our public
schools (complete with gory photos) about how dead people get when they are
shot? I don't know the answer.

>That being said I promise to play nice, to be more diplomatic and try
>harder to avoid offending folks here. So, for the record, I believe
>only an almost immeasurably miniscule percentage of hunters are
>blood-crazed deviants or whatever I'm accused of saying (although I
>still believe most of them wear camo duds), I believe that the number
>of gun owners who are homicidal maniacs is small enough to be
>statistically irrelevant, I do not underestimate the intellectual
>capacity of most rec.scubans, and I believe most Canucks who don't
>feel any need to be armed are not naive fools.

I believe if you feel the need to be armed, you should be able to be armed.
You don't have to justify it to anyone. Oh, and if you consider keeping
guns out of the hands of children and the insane, I'm for gun control. I'm
also for match control.

>And I also believe that if I didn't have to go to the funeral home
>tonight, my entirely empty glass would be calling for a refill.

I would think that kind of destination would demand not only a refill, but
"make that a double."

Galen Hekhuis NpD, JFR, GWA ghekhuis@earthlink.net
Illiterate? Write for FREE help

On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 18:22:05 -0500, "Dennis \(Icarus\)"
<nojunkmail@ever.invalid> wrote:


>>
>> I'll ask my uncle, the great white hunter, about it. I believe they
>> became friends through their common interest in guns and hunting.
>
>Look forward to hearing from you on this.

I saw my cousin (the great white hunter's son) at the funeral home
tonight. He reminded me that his dad wanted him to loan me a target
piece so I could get into club shooting. I said I'm up for it. He
couldn't remember the details of the hunting his dad and the
paraplegic did. I'll have to visit my uncle for the details.

I'll keep you posted on the target stuff and the details about the
paraplegic hunter. I did find out that he (the paraplegic) now runs a
gun shop in a nearby community. I may have to go visit him for the
details. Mebbe I could talk him into joining in on our thread. It
would be worth the drive to hear his take on the RHD's (remote hunting
devices).

JF

"JOF" <johnfrancis@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:bacl51lke8686amp6itcb39kg7qvs83h9s@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 22:06:52 -0500, "Dennis \(Icarus\)"
> <nojunkmail@ever.invalid> wrote:
>
>
> >And a quadriplegic is someone who's paralyzed from the neck down.
> >Extremely limited mobility.
> >
> >A paraplegic, having use of their arms, can hold their own rifle, aim,
etc.
>
> I understand that.

Glad to hear that.

>
> >> >> What would they do, find a watering hole or set out a salt lick or
> >> >> haunch of goat and wait for the animals to come to the gun?
> >> >
> >> >Pretty much what some hunters do, right?
> >> >Set up a blind, and wait for the animals to come to 'em.
> >>
> >> I suppose so. But I've heard of hunters tracking game too.
> >
> >If you can, find out how that paraplegic hunted.
> >Stalking, or from a blind/stand/etc?
>
> I'll ask my uncle, the great white hunter, about it. I believe they
> became friends through their common interest in guns and hunting.

Look forward to hearing from you on this.

Dennis
>
> JF
>