The Forum > General Discussion > Hunting - With Firearms or Bows; Is it still a moral pursuit in 2015 ?
Hunting - With Firearms or Bows; Is it still a moral pursuit in 2015 ?
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Page 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- ...
- 28
- 29
- 30
-
- All
The National Forum | Donate | Your Account | On Line Opinion | Forum | Blogs | Polling | About |
Syndicate RSS/XML |
|
About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy |
Much of what you say is correct. Borne out by crime figures. Fortunately, it's the crooks that do the most damage with guns, rather than licenced shooters.
I personally don't like hunting. I see no need for it. A couple of my long standing friends (all ex. now retired coppers) are avid hunters, with one of 'em, keen on Ducks (shotgun) and vermin 'grunters' (centre-fires). And whenever his wife allows him, up to the NT, he'd take his, big .458 Ruger Tropical S.S. seeking out Buffalo ? The same bloke, left the 'Prang Gang' (Accident Invest. Squad) because he couldn't stomach doing Fatals, day in and out ? His great love of hunting, or guns for that matter, didn't mean he was a raving psycho or weird in some perverse way ?
Nevertheless myself, I'm no hunter ! But I do enjoy the engineering features of a well designed and well mfg'd. F/A. I thoroughly enjoy punching holes in paper too, both with HG's and rifles, not to mention my beloved 870P, which we're no longer permitted to possess, thanks to a particular 'looney tune' now a resident in Risden Prison, in Hobart Town ?
Concerning your issues of Shooting in the Olympics, well that particular discipline has been around as long as the Olympics themselves. Not only your traditional free pistol and rifle (precision shooting), many involving the fairer sex too, but other cross country (in snow) where a F/A is carried and used as part of the event. Sorry, I have to disagree with you on the Olympics issue unfortunately SUSEONLINE.
FOXY...
As you say the consider F/A ownership a 'right' ? One of their amendments concerning 'the right to bear arms'. However, overtime I've seen the meaning of this amendment thoroughly dismantled only to be instantly reconstructed again - naturally by lawyers and academics.
The only positive thing that I can add to that proposition - one should never permit a lawyer to get anywhere near anything worthwhile ? Lest it all somehow disappears forever into the perpetual ether ?