Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
Hobbies & Interests
Hunting & Fishing
Poll about allowing suppressors for hunting purposes
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="vdub" data-source="post: 1779386" data-attributes="member: 6845"><p>The game wardens have already been outed for spreading falsehoods and misrepresenting what would happen if suppressor were allowed to hunt. They keep trying to use already illegal activities as reasons to not allow suppressors to be used while numerous other states are finding exactly the opposite. You are against suppressors. You cannot pick and choose which activities you would like suppressors to be used or not and get to say "I support suppressors". </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>No, it isn't! You either support gun rights or you do not. Plain and simple. You do not get to pick and choose which gun rights you support while making blanket statements that you support gun rights. If you said "I support gun rights with certain conditions and expectations of my chosing." then I would agree with you as you are more than willing to put conditions on others' rights.</p><p></p><p>The biggest difference between all of us supporting it and you not support it is we are not trying to force our views on you. If the regulation didn't exist and you had a choice to use a suppressor, you still have the choice of not using it. However the regulation does exist and we don't have a choice on using a suppressor or not.</p><p></p><p>Trust me I have taken numerous animals without a suppressor and zero animals with one. So the need for a suppressor to just take animals is zero. This is not some form of rocket science. Hunting is not that difficult. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Try buying a new car or lawn mower without a muffler!!! Bet you cannot do it. I do use eye and ear protection while mowing the yard. I cannot help it if you are not smart enough to do so and run the risk of doing damage to your hearing. Seems like your trend in running that risk carries over to hunting. You can keep trying to force your view on why we want to suppressors while hunting. Fact remains is there are a multitude of reasons why we want to use. Guess it is hard for you to accept and I am sure you will keep trying to force it on us in hopes we just accept it and move on.</p><p> </p><p></p><p></p><p>I would certainly hope for the sake of this country's security that getting a top secret security clearance required by the Secret Service takes longer than the typical background check to receive a tax stamp. I think your ignorance of the tax stamp process, the security clearance process, and what really happens to obtain one aids you in making a statement like this. Since I have been interviewed a few times for friends that have security clearances in the armed forces, I can say the process for obtaining or keeping your security clearance is way more in-depth than the tax stamp process. None of my family and friends were interviewed before they approved my tax stamps. Let's try to keep off the wall comparisons to prove points out of this thread because they will end up like the one you just did.</p><p> </p><p></p><p></p><p>Here you are again making assumptions that have no basis. Again, I think most if not all of us have made the suppressor purchase knowing full well that they were forbidden by current hunting regulations. There is no problem with trying to get them changed either as you will still have your choice of not using them.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="vdub, post: 1779386, member: 6845"] The game wardens have already been outed for spreading falsehoods and misrepresenting what would happen if suppressor were allowed to hunt. They keep trying to use already illegal activities as reasons to not allow suppressors to be used while numerous other states are finding exactly the opposite. You are against suppressors. You cannot pick and choose which activities you would like suppressors to be used or not and get to say "I support suppressors". No, it isn't! You either support gun rights or you do not. Plain and simple. You do not get to pick and choose which gun rights you support while making blanket statements that you support gun rights. If you said "I support gun rights with certain conditions and expectations of my chosing." then I would agree with you as you are more than willing to put conditions on others' rights. The biggest difference between all of us supporting it and you not support it is we are not trying to force our views on you. If the regulation didn't exist and you had a choice to use a suppressor, you still have the choice of not using it. However the regulation does exist and we don't have a choice on using a suppressor or not. Trust me I have taken numerous animals without a suppressor and zero animals with one. So the need for a suppressor to just take animals is zero. This is not some form of rocket science. Hunting is not that difficult. Try buying a new car or lawn mower without a muffler!!! Bet you cannot do it. I do use eye and ear protection while mowing the yard. I cannot help it if you are not smart enough to do so and run the risk of doing damage to your hearing. Seems like your trend in running that risk carries over to hunting. You can keep trying to force your view on why we want to suppressors while hunting. Fact remains is there are a multitude of reasons why we want to use. Guess it is hard for you to accept and I am sure you will keep trying to force it on us in hopes we just accept it and move on. I would certainly hope for the sake of this country's security that getting a top secret security clearance required by the Secret Service takes longer than the typical background check to receive a tax stamp. I think your ignorance of the tax stamp process, the security clearance process, and what really happens to obtain one aids you in making a statement like this. Since I have been interviewed a few times for friends that have security clearances in the armed forces, I can say the process for obtaining or keeping your security clearance is way more in-depth than the tax stamp process. None of my family and friends were interviewed before they approved my tax stamps. Let's try to keep off the wall comparisons to prove points out of this thread because they will end up like the one you just did. Here you are again making assumptions that have no basis. Again, I think most if not all of us have made the suppressor purchase knowing full well that they were forbidden by current hunting regulations. There is no problem with trying to get them changed either as you will still have your choice of not using them. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
Hobbies & Interests
Hunting & Fishing
Poll about allowing suppressors for hunting purposes
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom