TexasCHLforum.com

my problem with him he is like oh i support 2nd ammendment because im a hunter.well i dont hunt so what does that make me?

i know some hunters that dont think you need a handgun for anything.For me talking about hunting has nothing to do with anything.

AEA wrote:

O.F.Fascist wrote: In the primary I will vote for a state and gun rights supporting Texan who actually served his country, Ron Paul.

If you do that......you may as well just vote for Obama......it's the same thing as far as your vote is concerned.

Curious, how is voting for who you want in the primary the same as voting for Obama?

alvins wrote:my problem with him he is like oh i support 2nd ammendment because im a hunter.well i dont hunt so what does that make me?

i know some hunters that dont think you need a handgun for anything.For me talking about hunting has nothing to do with anything.

NRA supporter? Huh, he is an impostor.

OldCannon wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote:
OK -- perhaps poorly worded. Hunting is an activity that may use firearms. That better? Obviously hunting does not require firearms.
Deer Stalking??

Yup, "stalking" -- in England, Scotland, "hunting" is considered a sport that involves the use of tracking dogs (deer, fox, etc.). "Stalking" is basically you and a scoped rifle, sneaking up on a deer.

And, yeah, I _do_ understand your point, but we have to exit the mentality that hunting is associated-with/enabled-by the 2A. They're mutually exclusive.

In US, no one does stalking anymore to take deers, cause it is too tough to be successful. Here in US, lazy rich guys dump couple grands, and get to sit in steel tower look at where the feeders are, wait till sun rise, see feeders heads spinning, hungry Bucks come for couple licks, KABOOM!

Deer is down, Rush it to a Taxidermy and get it mounted in the Hall.

O.F.Fascist wrote:...As a Texan I cannot in good conscience vote for a northern gun banning liberal who fled to France when his country was at war...

Hmmm, which war and where/when did you serve? Was it in that same war?

Beiruty wrote:

OldCannon wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote:
OK -- perhaps poorly worded. Hunting is an activity that may use firearms. That better? Obviously hunting does not require firearms.
Deer Stalking??

Yup, "stalking" -- in England, Scotland, "hunting" is considered a sport that involves the use of tracking dogs (deer, fox, etc.). "Stalking" is basically you and a scoped rifle, sneaking up on a deer.

And, yeah, I _do_ understand your point, but we have to exit the mentality that hunting is associated-with/enabled-by the 2A. They're mutually exclusive.

In US, no one does stalking anymore to take deers, cause it is too tough to be successful. Here in US, lazy rich guys dump couple grands, and get to sit in steel tower look at where the feeders are, wait till sun rise, see feeders heads spinning, hungry Bucks come for couple licks, KABOOM!

Deer is down, Rush it to a Taxidermy and get it mounted in the Hall.

Wrong. Try hunting Elk or Mule Deer like that and you'll more than likely come up with a big "0". A hunt/stalk in Colo will
wear you out walking, stopping, glassing, over and over and over. I've personally stalked (walked up) white tail. It did not
require a scoped rifle. The last one I shot using that style of hunting was with a open iron sight Marlin 336. I also find
nothing wrong with hunting from stands, whether metal or home made tree stands, a ground blind.... or even while
relieving oneself.... I won't go into detail, but it's why you never leave your rifle in your blind. Hunt and be in the field
long enough (many seasons) and you'll see just about everything, and find a style of hunting that fits your abilities.

alvins wrote:my problem with him he is like oh i support 2nd ammendment because im a hunter.well i dont hunt so what does that make me?

i know some hunters that dont think you need a handgun for anything.For me talking about hunting has nothing to do with anything.

I don't think 2nd A has anything to do with hunting. I think it is a right worth protecting, period. I also know a bunch of hunters......
and every one I know owns a handgun or dozen or more

Dragonfighter wrote:

AEA wrote:

O.F.Fascist wrote: In the primary I will vote for a state and gun rights supporting Texan who actually served his country, Ron Paul.

If you do that......you may as well just vote for Obama......it's the same thing as far as your vote is concerned.

Curious, how is voting for who you want in the primary the same as voting for Obama?

If you vote for Paul in the Primary (who has NO CHANCE in the World to get the Nomination - and even if by some chance he did figure some way to get it, he has another NO CHANCE of beating Obama in the General) you have wasted your vote that could have been used for Romney that at least MAY have a chance at beating Obama in the General.

If we want even HALF a CHANCE of beating Obama in the General, WE MUST stick together on the only Primary Candidate that actually has a possibility of beating MaoBama.

Jalapeno Prepper wrote:

alvins wrote:my problem with him he is like oh i support 2nd ammendment because im a hunter.well i dont hunt so what does that make me?

i know some hunters that dont think you need a handgun for anything.For me talking about hunting has nothing to do with anything.

Actually, I think it means a lot. It shows they're either stupid and don't understand the second amendment or they think we're stupid enough to fall for their bait and switch. The only hunting protected by the second amendment is hunting redcoats. Metaphorically speaking of course.

This is a very old tactic. It was one of the "rational" for banning assault rifles and high capacity magazines - because you don't need them for hunting.

Oldgringo wrote:

O.F.Fascist wrote:...As a Texan I cannot in good conscience vote for a northern gun banning liberal who fled to France when his country was at war...

Hmmm, which war and where/when did you serve? Was it in that same war?

Nope, I wasn't around during the Vietnam war. Romney protested to support the war, however he never served.

Instead Romney choose to be a missionary in the poor impoverished nation of France.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... ioned.html

AEA wrote:

Dragonfighter wrote:

AEA wrote:

O.F.Fascist wrote: In the primary I will vote for a state and gun rights supporting Texan who actually served his country, Ron Paul.

If you do that......you may as well just vote for Obama......it's the same thing as far as your vote is concerned.

Curious, how is voting for who you want in the primary the same as voting for Obama?

If you vote for Paul in the Primary (who has NO CHANCE in the World to get the Nomination - and even if by some chance he did figure some way to get it, he has another NO CHANCE of beating Obama in the General) you have wasted your vote that could have been used for Romney that at least MAY have a chance at beating Obama in the General.

If we want even HALF a CHANCE of beating Obama in the General, WE MUST stick together on the only Primary Candidate that actually has a possibility of beating MaoBama.

Only way you will have a chance to beat Obama is with Paul.

Romney is just another rich white out of touch liberal, he just happens to be running in the Republican primary. He doesn't have dedicated and motivated supports like Paul does.

I do agree that the only way to beat Obama is for us to stick together, however there is a not insignificant number of Paul supporters who will not vote for any other Republican candidate. They could either not vote at all, vote 3rd party, or worse vote for Obama. So the question to ask is how serious are you and other Republican primary voters about defeating Obama, if you want those votes you need Ron Paul.

You can cry, when Romney loses in November that those Paul supporters should have voted for Romney but that wont change the fact, it is what it is.

For all the people who complain about the "trouble" Paul supporters cause, wouldn't you rather have them on your side causing that trouble for Obama. If Paul is the candidate, that will be the case.

O.F.Fascist wrote:however there is a not insignificant number of Paul supporters who will not vote for any other Republican candidate

I don't doubt this statement at all. However, I feel very much assured that the number of otherwise conservative voters who would not vote for Ron Paul for President FAR FAR outweighs the number who will only vote for Ron Paul for President.

Also, please mind the langauge. This forum has a strict language rule - see #1.

terryg wrote:

O.F.Fascist wrote:however there is a not insignificant number of Paul supporters who will not vote for any other Republican candidate

I don't doubt this statement at all. However, I feel very much assured that the number of otherwise conservative voters who would not vote for Ron Paul for President FAR FAR outweighs the number who will only vote for Ron Paul for President

Fair enough, when the Republican Party fails to oust Obama in November we can all as a Party blame ourselves for it.

Either way I will be voting my conscience in the primary, I will not rubber stamp Romney.

I pray to God that electing real conservatives like Ted Cruz, Sheriff Mack, and the like to other offices will be enough to get us through the next 4 years.

Ron Paul is the right's version of Ralph Nader. Never a serious contender, but just bothersome enough to pull votes away. If Obama's re-elected and there are any close states with significant write-in Paul votes (enough to have changed a state), he'll be as reviled as Nader was to the democrats in 2000.

Beiruty wrote: In US, no one does stalking anymore to take deers, cause it is too tough to be successful. Here in US, lazy rich guys dump couple grands, and get to sit in steel tower look at where the feeders are, wait till sun rise, see feeders heads spinning, hungry Bucks come for couple licks, KABOOM!

Heck, I love stalk hunting. Granted, I usually end up in a blind...but getting out and walking the property is enjoyable even if you don't jump something. Surely I can't be the only one?

P.S. - I like it on *very* cold mornings. Gets the blood flowing, so I don't turn in to a popsicle while sitting in the blind.


Oh, and to stay on topic. I can't stomach Mitt, but I can't stomach Obama even more so. Sadly, I am not voting for a candidate. I'm voting against an incumbent.