As a left-leaning socialist-friendly voting democrat, let me outline some two of my seemingly strange positions:
* I eat meat and believe that animals have no rights. I also believe we should treat them humanely, but feel no personal guilt or problem with as-humane-as possible killing, whether it be for food or ‘necessary’ science. Cosmetics testing is an abuse, in my opinion. Also, huge inhumane farming is an abuse as well in my opinion. That said, I eat meat rarely and usually prefer vegetables.
* I support the 2nd amendment and do not find problems with gun ownership. I’d support registration such as cars have and don’t buy the slippery-slope argument against. I just don’t think it’s that big of a deal one way or the other, so I say let the gun nuts have their guns so they’ll just shut up already.
Any other leftists out there who are gun-toting* meat-eaters?
*In theory. I do not (yet) own any firearms.
Right here. I also have a big, giant soft spot for good gin.
That reminds me: I need some Hendrick’s.
What are your current favorites?
Hendrick’s, Boodle’s, Saphire, Bulldog.
Haven’t tried Bulldog yet. Thanks.
That would be me, except for owning firearms. I live with people who live with depression; firearms in the house are not such a good idea.
It’s a wimpy gin with a decent taste. More of a competitor for saphire than something in the Boodles/Hendrick’s league. I’m not sure if it’s for sale in Oregon yet. It’s definitely not for sale in Jersey. I’ve found a few bottles in New York, though.
Indeed.
I love my meat (no jokes mister) And I own several firearms for hunting purposes. ( I eat what I hunt, no for “sport”)
I do however believe there should be strict registration and ownership requirements for private gun owners. I also think they the failure of the current idiotic administration to renew the ban on assault weapons is beyond stupid and GROSSLY negligent. There is no reason whatsoever for a private citizen to need or own an assault weapon.
I’m finding myself ordering plain tanq when I’m out and about lately. (though I usualy order rye when the bar has it. Man, I love me some rye)
Ooh, what do you hunt? I’m trying to get a hookup here for some goose for the holidays. I wouldn’t mind bagging my own someday.
Things I have hunted a few times.
Duck
Rabbit(when I was young)
Squirrel(” ”)
Things I have hunted for years
Deer
Turkey
Dove
Never hunted Goose…..I can’t imagine ever eating a canadian goose they are shit factories, and that’s all I see around here.
There isn’t much to dove, but the breat is quite good wrapped in bacon, or in a stew.
Venison is heaven to me.
about 11 years ago I had a wild goose breast, cold and sliced as one would slice a nice thick roast beef. It was so god-damned amazing I’m still sitting here 11 years later dreaming about it.
It was at a Mardi Gras party thrown by my Zoology Professor at Sonoma State University. Yum.
Yep, yet another meat-eating lefty without major gun issues. Mostly I oppose the need for an AK on the basis that if you need one to take down Bambi you should actually learn to aim.
I eat meat usually every day and wear leather, wool, etc…(Fur is wasteful and an anachronism, though.)
I don’t see anything wrong with killing an animal so long as you use the whole animal, and the killing isn’t overly cruel. (Captive bolt-stunning or kosher slaughter, ok.)
I don’t feel the need to have a gun, but would if I had to transport money around (receipts from a business, like a bar/restaurant) or lived in a dangerous area. (Of course, I lived on the South Side of Chicago for 3 years and in Miami for 3 and didn’t have any problems…)
I’m a left-standing, subversion-teaching, meat-eating, bow-&-arrow toting, gender-smooshing human being over here. The only reason I don’t have a gun yet is that I’d rather build skill first. Archery teaches skill.
But I also believe that it is necessary for one to prepare for tyranny. Not a popular viewpoint, but one that I find practical.
I have had roasted goose, and it is YUM
I like meat, though I am much more of a pussy about animals. I also recognize the hypocrisy inherent in eating something you are not yourself willing to kill. I’m working on that (either reducing my meat-eating, or increasing my killer instinct, haven’t decided which yet).
I like shooting guns, though not at animals. I think bow hunting is slightly more fair. But I don’t object to people eating what they kill. I will never turn down a good elk steak. 🙂 I used to really enjoy fishing, but it’s more difficult for me to enjoy it now.
Oh, also, you might like if you don’t know him already 😉
I’m more or less leftist and yet am a meat-eater who loved my experiences with guns. I don’t have one, but find firing one to be all kinds of fun. So.
In theory. I do not (yet) own any firearms.
I do. I’m thinking of turning myself in.
Off Topic:
These just-invented drinks sound good:
http://one-woman-army.livejournal.com/442801.html
I can understand the no-need argument, but I am curious what you think the differences are between an “assault weapon” and your hunting rifle.
If you are refering to cosmetic differences, (As the only legal definition of assault weapon I can find does,) I can illustrate for you some reasons.
A vertical grip, pistol grip, or thumbhole stock (One of the “Evil Features” in California,) are far more ergonomic for me, as my wrists are pretty severely injured and a traditional stock is painful to use.
A flash-hider/muzzle brake can slightly redirect the sound of the round and gasses exiting the barrel which is certainly more polite for other shooters at the range and damages your hearing less. It may also dissipate the flash somewhat, which is certainly nice on the eyes.
A variable length stock can allow more than one shooter, (For example me on the tall side of average and my wife who is smaller,) to use the same firearm comfortably and safely.
Are any of those features beyond stupid, grossly negligent or completely uneeded?
I am always glad to hear of folks on the left that aren’t hoplophobic, this has been an issue owned by the Republicans for too long. (In fact Clinton stated that the ’94 AWB was the reason for the Republican Revolution right afterwards.)
“Mostly I oppose the need for an AK on the basis that if you need one to take down Bambi you should actually learn to aim.”
Do you know where I can find one of these wonderweapons? I am shopping for an AK-pattern rifle right now, and I haven’t seen one that makes it so I don’t have to aim.
I would love to be able to get a T-day Turkey and a Xmas goose. Both are challenging animals, (Turkeys have surperb eyesight and geese fly really high,) unless you hunt like Cheney.
Private citizen ownership of automatic weapons is completely insane for one who really needs a fully automatic weapon? The best example off the top of my head, is the AR-15. The bullet for an AR-15 (the semi-automatic version of the M-16) is not suitable for hunting, as it really would only wound a deer or other big game, unless you pump several rounds into them, the chances of which are slim, unless you have dead-eye accuracy. This weapon was clearly designed to kill humans. People who are sport shooters, such as range shooters, do I think they have that right…..yea, sure, but do you really need to OWN the weapon?
1. The ’94 ban had nothing whatsoever to do with automatic weapons. You do realize that, right? Full auto weapons were heavily restricted in 1986, and have been controlled since the mid ’30s. Assault Weapon is a made up term coined specifically to confuse folks. An Assault Weapon as defined legally mainly differs from a “sporting” weapon in cosmetic features such as the ones I listed.
2. 5.56 in military configuration is admittedly sub-optimal for deer, but fine for feral hogs, coyotes, and other pestilence varmints. Loads of folks hunt humanely with it. And you CAN take deer with it, if you use the right load. Some states just set a limit, (Like .270 or bigger,) for large game. The AR pattern rifles are availible in other cartridges, however, like .308. .308 is a fine deer cartridge. The ergos of the AR are superior to many more traditional weapons, and it makes a fine weapon in the field.
3. As for being designed to kill, strictly speaking, it was designed to propel a projectile downrange accurately. It is a military weapon, and as such has certain features which make it attractive as a hunting weapon. Military weapons tend to be reliable, durable and usually have an effective round. They are common, so the ammo and magazines are relatively inexpensive. The modern bolt-action rifles used by many hunters were patterned after military weapons “clearly designed to kill humans.” The AR pattern is just a more technologically advanced firearm.
4. I find it somewhat inconsistent that you say the .223/5.56NATO is for killing humans, but then you say it is not a powerful enough round for hunting. How is that possible?
I am also curious why you think full-auto weapons are completely insane for private citizens to own but that is a separate topic.
yes…..my stance on automatic weapons is a seperate rant.
There derivitive weapons are taken from the design of military weapons which are most certainly NOT designed to propel a projectile accurately down range. They were designed to kill the enemy. To do so, they mush propel the projectile accurately down range.
I never said it wasn’t a powerful enough round for hunting. I said it is not an effective round for hunting big game. The bipedal ambulation of humans makes kill points MUCH more accessible for even mediocre marksmen. I have no doubt it CAN and WILL put down big game, but not in the accepted manner of quick kills. Who shoots a deer to let it trail off into the woods and die and have to fish it out on purpose? No hunter I know.
My point is that gun control in this country in general is weak. Far too many weapons are far to accesible to people with less than good intentions. Not renewing the assault weapons ban, makes the “cooler” ones just too accessible, and unfortunately there are way too many irresponsible gun owners in this country not to have stricter control. In the case of people with guns in this country the crimes of many greatly outweight the responsible use of the minority.
Your hunting rifle is no doubt also derived from a military weapon, just not as new of a design. What makes it so much more benign? The “Designed to kill” is a silly argument when comparing so-called “sporting” weapons to newer military derived weapons.
.223 can make a quick humane kill, but that is not really relevant to your point, either, since you know that AR pattern weapons are also available in “sporting” calibers. The humane argument is not relevant to the discussion of military style rifles, because military style rifles are quite capable of taking game in humane one-shot kills.
Your inconsistency with regard to the power of rounds, (Or suitability for hunting since you are playing semantic games with my paraphrase of your words,) and “designed to kill” is that anything powerful enough to take a deer humanely is also a man-killer. No way around that.
“My point is that gun control in this country in general is weak. Far too many weapons are far to accesible to people with less than good intentions.”
And stricter gun-control is ineffective at preventing those people with less than good intentions from getting weapons. Restriction only keeps those arms out of the hands of law-abiding folks. Do you really think that someone who is intent on taking a life cares weather or not his rifle has the correct number of legal features? BTW, how many is the right number of weapons accesible to people with less than good intentions?
“Not renewing the assault weapons ban, makes the “cooler” ones just too accessible,”
Are you less dead if killed by an “uncool” rifle? How does the “cool”-ness of a rifle have any effect whatsoever on the round it fires? It doesn’t.
“and unfortunately there are way too many irresponsible gun owners in this country not to have stricter control. ”
Uh, really? Like who? What gun owners are you talking about? Please don’t come back with some manipulated and dishonest stat about gun violence in the home. Suicides, don’t count, and neither do murders. Far more deaths occur from standing water and automobiles. Would you advocate outlawing water in containers or automobiles? Or course, not. (Well maybe with the cars, you would, but for environmental reasons, I imagine.)
But let’s pretend for a second that we really are beset with droves of folks dying from irresponsible gun use. How on earth does irresponsible use by some justify restriction for the law-abiders?
“In the case of people with guns in this country the crimes of many greatly outweight the responsible use of the minority.”
Oh, that’s how. Damn. That’s scary. The “common good” is a powerful tool for bigots. Not a lot of difference between the war on guns and the war on t’rr’r in that regard.
Is your hoplophobia a matter of projection? Are you seriously worried that you would go on a killing spree if you lever/pump/bolt action rifle was a military style rifle?
Is it ignorance? I am trying to point out the areas where you may be misinformed, (Like your suggestion the ’94 AWB had anything to do with machine guns.)
Or is it a deep form of elitism, (Good enough for me, but not for those other folks,) that makes you think that way?
Why do you think that so-called irresponsible gun use should be used to restrict the ability to defend oneself?
As long as progressives keep up with the idea that banning firearms makes anything or anyone safer, many gun owners are going to continue to pass on the progressive vote. has the right of it. Progressives should ditch the dead and worthless political albatross of gun control and concentrate on real issues.