Moderators: Bill_Abner, ScoopBrady
Democrates don't own guns or hunt?JackB1 wrote:
On the 2nd......file this under "politics". Ever since the NRA has been in bed with the Republican party, guns and politics have gone hand in hand....unfortunately.
Yeah I do. OK I apologize for the generalization that all those who shoot animals do so with slow twang and a piece of corn in their mouths. I've met some very nice people who also feel it is just fine to put a bullet into a perfectly happy deer or pig for the sheer pleasure of it. In fact a good buddy of mine who lives out in Idaho razzes me all the time about how great deer burgers and boar dogs are. If he wants to call me a tree huggin' animal lover (and does:)) then I don't give a crap just as long as he doesn't get his panties in a twist about me calling him a hill billy blood thirsty moron (and he doesn't). You guys get so offended so easily and try to take this weird moral high ground that is so odd.matthewk wrote:Do you know any hunters personally, out there in San Diego?macsomjrr wrote:I'm with Jack. People who shoot animals for fun out in a field aren't doing it because they feel like they're out saving humanity from the ills of lyme disease. They're doing it cause they are blood thirst hillbilly morons who like to shoot at living things and watch them die.
I vote we sign up Jack, GT, and Mac here to be contestants on Ted Nugent's next show
This sounds like a second grader attempting to taunt someone on the playground, GT...hell, I blew up a frog or two as a kid. No biggie...GTHobbes wrote:What's the matter, guys? Did the story about Bush blowing up frogs for fun hit a little too close to home? I know sweaty Teddy (Nugent) would approve of that one.
Please tell me you didn't wet the bed and start fires also;)Teal wrote:This sounds like a second grader attempting to taunt someone on the playground, GT...hell, I blew up a frog or two as a kid. No biggie...GTHobbes wrote:What's the matter, guys? Did the story about Bush blowing up frogs for fun hit a little too close to home? I know sweaty Teddy (Nugent) would approve of that one.
And I'm still waiting for the proof that 'sport' hunters kill animals for fun and/or amusement. You're confusing this 'sport' with say, football or golf. Not even in the same league. They don't go out there and kill a f***in deer and leave it there because 'I SCORED!!!' Nor do they skin the damned animal, take the head, and leave the meat to rot out there in the meadow-what in the hell do you think these people do?!?JackB1 wrote:And therein lies the problem. "Interpretation". It allows everyone to adjust the words in the Bible to fit their lifestyle. I am still waiting for the passage that says it's OK to kill animals for fun or for our own amusement. Something tells me JC wouldn't approve.Teal wrote:
Your interpretation of 'mistreat' is far, far too wide to be contained in any mandate in scripture.
macsomjrr wrote:Yeah I do. OK I apologize for the generalization that all those who shoot animals do so with slow twang and a piece of corn in their mouths. I've met some very nice people who also feel it is just fine to put a bullet into a perfectly happy deer or pig for the sheer pleasure of it. In fact a good buddy of mine who lives out in Idaho razzes me all the time about how great deer burgers and boar dogs are. If he wants to call me a tree huggin' animal lover (and does:)) then I don't give a crap just as long as he doesn't get his panties in a twist about me calling him a hill billy blood thirsty moron (and he doesn't). You guys get so offended so easily and try to take this weird moral high ground that is so odd.matthewk wrote:Do you know any hunters personally, out there in San Diego?macsomjrr wrote:I'm with Jack. People who shoot animals for fun out in a field aren't doing it because they feel like they're out saving humanity from the ills of lyme disease. They're doing it cause they are blood thirst hillbilly morons who like to shoot at living things and watch them die.
I vote we sign up Jack, GT, and Mac here to be contestants on Ted Nugent's next show
Also the controlled and humane killing of animals in a slaughter house or abattoir doesn't compare to being shot in neck, leg, or abdomen only to either be caught by the hunter (and subsequently shot in the head or have your neck cut) or run away to bleed to death, or develop a septic abdomen, or become permanently crippled just so you can high five your buddy and smoke a few stoogies to celebrate unnecessary cruelty to animals. Yeah!
Sorry if this is offensive to all you hunters or pro-hunting people out there. It isn't meant to be sure I'm just giving you the other side of the story. I believe Rob's sig "Dissent as the highest form of patriotism" applies, no?
Yeah, God forbid someone with so little experience could actually be that near the presidency...D'OH!JRod wrote:I not surprised that DSP veered off into hunting v guns v humane treatment of animals.
But geez Palin is stupid. This has nothing to do with turkey, it has to do that a national candidate, or future national candidate, does not have the wherewithal to not have a guy slaughter a turkey while she's on camera.
You think one of her handlers would have told the guy, could you stop with the neck splittin for a second!
Just think this lady could have been one step away from being President.
I'm not going to admit to something just so you feel better about your own childhood, Mac...macsomjrr wrote:Please tell me you didn't wet the bed and start fires also;)Teal wrote:This sounds like a second grader attempting to taunt someone on the playground, GT...hell, I blew up a frog or two as a kid. No biggie...GTHobbes wrote:What's the matter, guys? Did the story about Bush blowing up frogs for fun hit a little too close to home? I know sweaty Teddy (Nugent) would approve of that one.
Touche´Teal wrote:I'm not going to admit to something just so you feel better about your own childhood, Mac...macsomjrr wrote:Please tell me you didn't wet the bed and start fires also;)Teal wrote: This sounds like a second grader attempting to taunt someone on the playground, GT...hell, I blew up a frog or two as a kid. No biggie...
Teal wrote:Yeah, God forbid someone with so little experience could actually be that near the presidency...D'OH!JRod wrote:I not surprised that DSP veered off into hunting v guns v humane treatment of animals.
But geez Palin is stupid. This has nothing to do with turkey, it has to do that a national candidate, or future national candidate, does not have the wherewithal to not have a guy slaughter a turkey while she's on camera.
You think one of her handlers would have told the guy, could you stop with the neck splittin for a second!
Just think this lady could have been one step away from being President.
Palin is no genius, but I think there was also a lot of scapegoating going on after McCain was soundly defeated.Feanor wrote:It's not that Palin was too inexperienced, it's that she was too f***in dumb to be anywhere near the Presidency. Something that McCain's handlers were able to confirm about 10 minutes after McCain conceded and they didn't need to protect her anymore.
I never said that. I only said hunting is more engrained in the culture of the South. "More" doesn't mean all or nothing. It just means more. It doesn't mean everyone in the North is innocent. You always take my words and make them into "all or nothing" statements, which they are not.JackDog wrote:
Democrates don't own guns or hunt?
Yes and No. An accurate hunter who kills his prey instantly with a shot to the brain is probably doing a better job than the slaughterhouses that raise their animals in overcrowded, disgusting, filthy conditions and then slaughter them in the cheapest way that sometimes means prolonged suffering and a long, slow, painful death. Then again, how many hunters are described by my 1st sentence? Probably few.macsomjrr wrote: Also the controlled and humane killing of animals in a slaughter house or abattoir doesn't compare to being shot in neck, leg, or abdomen only to either be caught by the hunter (and subsequently shot in the head or have your neck cut) or run away to bleed to death, or develop a septic abdomen, or become permanently crippled just so you can high five your buddy and smoke a few stoogies to celebrate unnecessary cruelty to animals. Yeah!
Not sure how you are defining more 'engrained...' by the number of Jeff Foxworthy jokes you have heard?JackB1 wrote:I never said that. I only said hunting is more engrained in the culture of the South. "More" doesn't mean all or nothing. It just means more. It doesn't mean everyone in the North is innocent. You always take my words and make them into "all or nothing" statements, which they are not.JackDog wrote:
Democrates don't own guns or hunt?
You are taking things to the other extreme. Why does every statement made in this thread get attacked by those that disagree with a "all or nothing" mentality. Of course not ALL hunters do it for their own amusement, but there certainly are a good amount that do.Teal wrote: And I'm still waiting for the proof that 'sport' hunters kill animals for fun and/or amusement. You're confusing this 'sport' with say, football or golf. Not even in the same league. They don't go out there and kill a f***in deer and leave it there because 'I SCORED!!!' Nor do they skin the damned animal, take the head, and leave the meat to rot out there in the meadow-what in the hell do you think these people do?!?
I dont see anywhere in that pdf link where it shows numbers of hunters by State. The only graph I saw showed the percentages that hunted in their own state.webdanzer wrote:Not sure how you are defining more 'engrained...' by the number of Jeff Foxworthy jokes you have heard?JackB1 wrote:I never said that. I only said hunting is more engrained in the culture of the South. "More" doesn't mean all or nothing. It just means more. It doesn't mean everyone in the North is innocent. You always take my words and make them into "all or nothing" statements, which they are not.JackDog wrote:
Democrates don't own guns or hunt?
US Census statistics:
http://www.census.gov/prod/2008pubs/fhw06-nat.pdf
Page 67:
Highest percentage of hunters are in the West North Central part of the country. Southern states are equivalent to Middle Atlantic and East North Central.
This thread has no place for you "numbers" and fancy book learnin'!! You're probably on the payroll for Big Hunting.webdanzer wrote:Not sure how you are defining more 'engrained...' by the number of Jeff Foxworthy jokes you have heard?JackB1 wrote:I never said that. I only said hunting is more engrained in the culture of the South. "More" doesn't mean all or nothing. It just means more. It doesn't mean everyone in the North is innocent. You always take my words and make them into "all or nothing" statements, which they are not.JackDog wrote:
Democrates don't own guns or hunt?
US Census statistics:
http://www.census.gov/prod/2008pubs/fhw06-nat.pdf
Page 67:
Highest percentage of hunters are in the West North Central part of the country. Southern states are equivalent to Middle Atlantic and East North Central.
The number is in thousands, before the percentages. I was quoting by percentages because if we go by number, the more populous north eastern states come out on top there as well.JackB1 wrote:
I dont see anywhere in that pdf link where it shows numbers of hunters by State. The only graph I saw showed the percentages that hunted in their own state.
