Skip to main content

is a justification I have on occasion seen used as a justification for weapons like AR-15s while hunting.

Except this idea has been addressed before, in the move "The Magic Christian" as you can see here:

Originally posted to teacherken on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 04:30 PM PST.

Also republished by Shut Down the NRA.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (24+ / 0-)

    "We didn't set out to save the world; we set out to wonder how other people are doing and to reflect on how our actions affect other people's hearts." - Pema Chodron

    by teacherken on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 04:30:12 PM PST

  •  Lies. There are better 1st-shot kill weapons (12+ / 0-)

    The .223 round has a high muzzle velocity but it is light. Conventional hunting rifles can more reliably deliver a 1st round clean kill than an AR-15. Sport huntering would not skip a beat in the slightest measure were every AR-15 on Earth to magically morph into a conventional bolt-action rifile.

    •  PS: Today it's be done w/ surface to bird missiles (7+ / 0-)
    •  Thats a complicate question (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      annecros, JesseCW, Quicklund

      From what I have read, the .223 Remington can be use but isn't the best choice.  Anything a bit more powerful will be adequate.  Cartridges like the 7.62x39 and .30-30 are by some accounts nearly perfect.  I would never hunt on religious grounds.  

      The .223 Remington has the virtue of being very accurate and is used by civilians competitively.  An off the rack service rifle needs to shoot 2-3 inches at 100 yards.  A good rifle will do less than 2 inches at 100 yards.  An properly designed and built AR15 can produce groups as small as .5 inches at 100 yards.  Of course, it requires considerable training.  

      Under capitalism man exploits man, under communism the roles are reversed.

      by DavidMS on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 07:40:41 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I commend you for reading (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        IreGyre, Quicklund

        but the real purpose of the rifle in question, and it's ammunition, is to kill/disable human beings.  It's relatively light weight bullet traveling at a high velocity tends not to penetrate dense bone, but rather to riccochet and do great damage to soft tissue.  

        Anyone "hunting" with such a rifle or this ammunition is likely not doing it for meat.  I personally have no use for people who kill other creatures for the "sport" of it.  

        The longer I live, the clearer I perceive how unmatchable a compliment one pays when he says of a man "he has the courage to utter his convictions." Mark Twain

        by Persiflage on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 07:54:44 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I am confused by your response. (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          annieli, annecros, JesseCW, Quicklund

          I noted that several cartridges are more suitable for deer hunting that the .223 Remington.  I then stated that I don't hunt on religious grounds.  

          My question is how my parse of the the AR15 as a target rifle get construed as its real purpose is to kill people?  That is like horse people being upset citizens are buying M1903s chambered in .30-06 because its a military rifle that was designed around a cartridge intended to stop cavalry charges.  

          Under capitalism man exploits man, under communism the roles are reversed.

          by DavidMS on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 08:31:18 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  David, your comments about the ammunition (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Quicklund

            were correct.  The .223 is also available in bolt-action rifles that are indeed commonly used by people who target shoot.  My comment was directed towards the "assault" rifle and it's intended use.  I'm not arguing...just commenting.

            The longer I live, the clearer I perceive how unmatchable a compliment one pays when he says of a man "he has the courage to utter his convictions." Mark Twain

            by Persiflage on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 03:49:56 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  It's illegal in most states for deer or larger (0+ / 0-)

        game.

        It's a great round for game under 50 pounds in open country, at a range of 100 to 300 yards (fired from a lot longer barrel than a "tactical Bushmaster").

        "I have often seen people uncivil by too much civility, and tiresome in their courtesy." Michel de Montaigne

        by JesseCW on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 04:54:54 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  If one needs an AR-15 for hunting, one is a (13+ / 0-)

    flipping idiot.  Unless, of course, one's prey is also packin' the same...in which case, good luck out there.

    I've never understood those who cannot understand the concept of not being able to own any old weapon they like, just because..........whateverthehell.

    If reason doesn't work with the inept, perhaps public mockery will.

    All the best to you and LOTC; been keeping you both in my prayers, especially today.

    Marti

    We cannot call ourselves a civilised society if we refuse to protect the weakest among us.

    by The Marti on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 05:05:46 PM PST

  •  Like most of Peter Seller's work, this is a funny (5+ / 0-)

    clip.  I don't know where you might have heard references such as you state, but it seems unlikely to have come from sane, responsible hunters..of which there are many.  Assault Rifles were developed to meet military objectives of low weight, firepower, and effectiveness to do the job required of combat infantrymen...incapacitating their enemies.

    It is not, to my knowledge, commonly used to hunt/kill game animals.  I am aware that such rifles have been used by idiots who call themselves "sportsmen" to indiscriminately kill all kinds of critters.  Sarah Palin is one of those idiots...in my opinion.  

    I am opposed to civilian ownership of high-power autoloading rifles with high capacity magazines.  They are inappropriate for hunting for a variety of reasons, and they are too often the tool of choice for deranged, criminal, or just plain bad people.

    That said, I don't believe this post is conducive to the cause of rational gun controls because your suppositions are wrong and the film, as you intended it...appparently...is meant to ridicule gun owners.

    Certainly hope...on a different topic...that your wife is feeling better and regains her health fully and quickly.

    The longer I live, the clearer I perceive how unmatchable a compliment one pays when he says of a man "he has the courage to utter his convictions." Mark Twain

    by Persiflage on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 05:16:11 PM PST

    •  I understand what you mean, and I agree to a (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Quicklund, Persiflage

      point.  

      However, this:

      ....the film, as you intended it...appparently...is meant to ridicule gun owners.
      is inaccurate.  I don't think he means to ridicule sane, responsible hunters.  I think he means to ridicule the nuts.

      Not all gun owners qualify.  Not even most.  But those who do, deserve to be ridiculed-- loudly and often.  And in public.

      It's a fine balance to strike, and sometimes, out of the best of intentions, some of us don't.

      Pax?
      Marti

      We cannot call ourselves a civilised society if we refuse to protect the weakest among us.

      by The Marti on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 06:14:38 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Pax? Of course...it's just a discussion (5+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        The Marti, DavidMS, annecros, exlrrp, JesseCW

        The problem with generalized ridicule is that it's hard to not generally take offense.  If one wants to ridicule Ted Nugent, for example, that's specific...and he could be ridiculed for many reasons.  

        Lots of Democrats, progressive people, own guns for a variety of reasons.  Should they choose to say why, someone will always find a way, if they want to, to be critical.  It gets tiresome.  I've met vegetarians that can make a dinner party damn near unbearable with their anti-meat talk.  Me, I don't care what people eat as long as they don't ridicule me for what I eat or try to force their dietary reasoning on me.  That's perhaps a foolish and trite example, but you get the picture.

        I have no idea what TK's experience is with guns.  He apparently doesn't know much about them except what we all know...that they can be used for evil as well as useful purposes.  To that end, had he posed his suppostion as a question rather than something else...and not used the film clip..I would view his intent differently.  I don't think he was looking for answers...he was being somewhat inflammatory.  IMHO.  

        The longer I live, the clearer I perceive how unmatchable a compliment one pays when he says of a man "he has the courage to utter his convictions." Mark Twain

        by Persiflage on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 07:21:17 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  At least we can discuss and disagree and still (0+ / 0-)

          understand each other's position.  That is the essence of debate, I think.

          I'm sorry you found TK to be inflammatory, as I've always found him to be very reasoned and kind.  Perhaps it is the subject, itself, that gets us emotional?  Both sides can let our emotions cloud what we normally would see as humour or sarcasm, rather than an attempt to inflame.

          Sadly, responsible hunters are bearing the brunt of a lot of the arguments.  They shouldn't have to, but until we find ways to make our common ground the new norm, we all will have to take a step back and let some things go by.  Not because we aren't willing to stand up for ourselves, but because we (rightly) feel the other person is doing their best.  We are, aren't we?

          We'll get through this great debate, together.  Because we, all of us who care so passionately, will make sure we do.

          We cannot call ourselves a civilised society if we refuse to protect the weakest among us.

          by The Marti on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 07:47:27 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  I know more than you give me credit for (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Laurel in CA, walkshills, exlrrp

          I served in the Marines during the 60s where I fired among other weapons M-1s, BARs, M-14s, and M-16s, the equivalent of the AR-15.  I also fired 1911A1M1 45 caliber pistols.

          I have in the years since read a fair amount about firearms at various times.

          I see no valid civilian purpose for a military weapon whose purpose is to kill people.

          For hunting purposes, one can make an argument that if you cannot bring down a deer using a bolt action rifle maybe you shouldn't be shooting at it.

          Federal regulations for hunting ducks give you a limit of 3 shotgun shells without reloading.  

          I am close friends with people whop have worked in emergency rooms and in one case in a shock trauma unit, and have had graphic descriptions of what some of these weapons do.

          After Giffords was shot, I remember reading and writing about doctors who were seeing military style wounds in hospitals in American cities like Los Angeles.

          I do not claim to be an expert.

          I do discuss my thoughts with people who are, including people who served in special forces of one sort or another, and current federal, state and local law enforcement personnel, none of whom, by the way, either want guns on college campuses or things like AR-15s in civilian hands except in controlled situations like gun ranges.

          "We didn't set out to save the world; we set out to wonder how other people are doing and to reflect on how our actions affect other people's hearts." - Pema Chodron

          by teacherken on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 08:59:21 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  The purpose of the bolt-action M1903 (0+ / 0-)

            Sprinfield was to kill people.

            Are you saying it's not an appropriate hunting weapon?

            Thing is, I agree with you when it comes to high capacity magazines.  There is no valid civilian purpose for them.  No one even needs them for self defense unless they're Scarface.

            But this "military weapons" argument is specious, however much the passion with which you voice it might serve to achieve your primary goal of getting time on the Rec list.

            "I have often seen people uncivil by too much civility, and tiresome in their courtesy." Michel de Montaigne

            by JesseCW on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 05:04:24 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  shall we make a distinction (0+ / 0-)

              between the sole purpose and the original purpose?

              might that satisfy you?

              the '03 Springfield did not have the destructive power of the M-16 or the M-4.  It had a high degree of lethality when originally used in conflict because our ability to save battlefield casualties was far more limited.

              I do not think the argument is "specious" nor do a fair number of military folks who have come down forcefully on their belief that AR-15s like the Bushmaster used in Newtown should not be in civilian hands. Do you think a 4-star like McChrystal is making a specious argument?

              "We didn't set out to save the world; we set out to wonder how other people are doing and to reflect on how our actions affect other people's hearts." - Pema Chodron

              by teacherken on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 02:45:07 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  Sir, you and I essentially agree on this point: (0+ / 0-)
            I see no valid civilian purpose for a military weapon whose purpose is to kill people
            as you might note from my comments above.  My comment on your knowledge came from the question you posed.  It's one thing to have pulled the trigger on various types of firearms and another to have knowledge of the ballistics, impact characteristics, and purpose of various ammunition.  One, seemingly, could assume some lack of that knowledge based on your question.

            Given that you now purport to have that knowledge it reinforces my thought that your purpose with this diary and the film clip was as I mentioned above.  That's not helpful for reasons also stated above.  

            Shortly after New Town a front-pager posted a diary featuring a picture of a man near his pick-up truck carrying an absurdly large rifle.  Purportedly this was a southern redneck and several following diaries have focused on old, white, southern males as being gun-loving idiots.  The day following, this article appeared in our local paper.  See any rednecks with big guns?  

            http://www.starnewsonline.com/...

            If the rube pictured in the frontpage diary wants to shoot tree-stumps and doesn't harm anyone, thats part of the freedom of being free.  Doesn't make him any bigger dolt than people who wear styrofoam cheese wedges on their heads and act crazy for a sports team.  Is there potential for greater danger from the gun guy?  Yes.  But, to ridicule and paint with a broad brush creates antagonism.   There's greater potential for damage from people who own and drive "muscle" cars than family sedans...but we don't paint the people that own them as nutjobs...we just expect them to use them responsibly.  

            The longer I live, the clearer I perceive how unmatchable a compliment one pays when he says of a man "he has the courage to utter his convictions." Mark Twain

            by Persiflage on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 06:09:34 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  let's talk about shooting tree stumps (0+ / 0-)

              is there a backstop to the tree stump so that round does not travel and hit someone or something else?

              is that tree stump his property?

              the issue is not whether harms someone - we do not arrest drunk drivers only after they crash - it is whether the action is inherently dangerous, in which case society's right to safety outweighs the individuals claim to otherwise unrestrained liberty.

              "We didn't set out to save the world; we set out to wonder how other people are doing and to reflect on how our actions affect other people's hearts." - Pema Chodron

              by teacherken on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 02:37:37 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  You're quite good at deflecting the conversation (0+ / 0-)

                away from the issues you raised and the way you chose to convey your disdain....which was my point in commenting on your diary in the first place...and which you have completely avoided subsequently.  

                The longer I live, the clearer I perceive how unmatchable a compliment one pays when he says of a man "he has the courage to utter his convictions." Mark Twain

                by Persiflage on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 04:57:36 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

  •  That's funny, because I talk to hunters all the (5+ / 0-)

    time and I've never heard of a quick clean kill of an animal to be a reason to buy a scary black gun chambered in 223.

    Very few hunters spend that kind of change on a rifle they are not likely to use, but then I've yet to hear anyone say others shouldn't have them if they want to. Hunters do tend to respect the right of others to buy whatever silly piece of plastic they want to.

    Weird hunting comedy scenes from old movies are probably not a very good place to get a take on the real world.

    How big is your personal carbon footprint?

    by ban nock on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 06:22:02 PM PST

    •  Shooting, not hunting (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Mathazar, ToKnowWhy, IreGyre

      The old rule is: One shot - meat, two shots - maybe meat, and three shots - find a new place to hunt if they are not obviously miles and miles away.  I hunt for meat, and multiple wounds from a .223 that is designed to maximize tissue damage with each bullet is totally inconsistent with that purpose.  There are many reasons not to eat the meat that is damaged.

      Leaving aside the questions of ethics and practicality, using something like a Bushmaster as a hunting weapon is shooting, not hunting, and generally damn dangerous to the rest of us in the woods.  By the time someone has triggered a third round at a running deer, he/she generally has no idea what is behind the animal.  I leave it to those smarter than me to figure out what someone carrying a weapon with a more rounds in his/her magazine intends to do with the rest of the ammunition.

      •  Oops (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        JesseCW

        The last sentence should have read: I leave it to those smarter than me to figure out what someone carrying a weapon with a couple dozen more rounds in his/her magazine intends to do with the rest of the ammunition.

        •  Ar-15's are still legal in California. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          salmo

          With five round magazines that require a tool to remove.

          The silly looking gun isn't really the problem.  The 30 round clip is.

          "I have often seen people uncivil by too much civility, and tiresome in their courtesy." Michel de Montaigne

          by JesseCW on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 05:06:21 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  i'm pooped. (0+ / 0-)

      at least I'M not game.
      nor is my pal, BB, that tall yellow fellow who helped us win something in the last election. nor is Elwood, my computer-geek rooster buddy who needs a forever home (not a roasting pan) because he starts crowing at 3am (it's his job !!) ...

      well, hell with it: here's my 2-cents for today, after all this palaver back-and-forth-finger-poking name-calling emotionally-battering blizzard-hyped-hysteria-filled dark day of existence -- but listen up. if you're able to read this and get to the citations at the end, you'll see why i'm not likely to get excited about the uptick in valuation for "certain" products of a haberdashery-based style... means now i'll have to insure the damned relic.

      read it with respect: there are heroes, martyrs and idols here in this short pdf file -- and they are powerful. i have done my best, now let me rest. i have snowballs to prepare and miles to go before i peep, and miles to go before i peep.

      * Join: The Action: End the Bush Tax Cuts for Richest Two Percent * Addington's Perpwalk: TRAILHEAD of Accountability for Bush-2 Crimes.

      by greenbird on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 07:01:31 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Makes you wonder (4+ / 0-)

    how anyone managed to kill a deer prior to the invention of the .223 round.

    My grandfather never seemed to complain that his .30-06 wouldn't do the trick.

    If the pilot's good, see, I mean if he's reeeally sharp, he can barrel that baby in so low... oh you oughta see it sometime. It's a sight. A big plane like a '52... varrrooom! Its jet exhaust... frying chickens in the barnyard!

    by Major Kong on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 06:38:30 PM PST

    •  .30-.30s were the king for a long time (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      teacherken

      Up to the mid-60s it was generally acknowledged that the old lever action .30-.30s had killed more deer than any other weapon in Texas.

      It's popularity faded as scopes came more into play and the .30-.06 eventually overtook the role, with .270s a close second. The one-shot kill skillfully executed in a manner to preserve as much edible meat as possible was ideal.  

      Rural culture still holds to that but there's more and more shooters all the time, where hunting is just a means to an end.

      The truth is we are tortured by the truth.

      by walkshills on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 11:06:37 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Hunters disagree wildly on this. I do not (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    annecros

    hunt, but my family does. My brother prefers his kids to use .223 rifle for doe season. He uses a 30.06 I think for deer. But the deer in the Gulf Coast area are small compared to the rest of the country, and I don't know that .223 is a good round for deer in general.

    I would also say that, after having found so very many deer decomposing in the woods with an arrow sticking out of them, I pretty much wish hunters would use guns, not bows. I hate the suffering that bow hunting causes.

    “liberals are the people who think that cruelty is the worst thing that we do” --Richard Rorty Also, I moved from NYC, so my username is inaccurate.

    by jeff in nyc on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 06:41:58 PM PST

  •  .223 not considered good deer catridge by any (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Calamity Jean, JesseCW

    hunter I've known in more than 45 years in the woods. Someone here commented about 1 shot usually means a deer for freezer , two maybe , and three , everyone duck. Not legal in my state (Alabama , surprise) to hunt with big ol' clip. Aesthetics - most of us , who tend to be older men , think there is something a little odd about those who like to tote them Veet Nam rifles out hunting. The general rifle design holds no terribly good memories for many terribly sane folk.

    Good friends are a dime per molecule.

    by Abra Crabcakeya on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 07:24:21 PM PST

  •  in (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    annecros

    rifles so chambered regardless of rifle configuration appearance or bolt-action or semi-auto capability and because of muzzle velocity, .223 is a long range small varmint round albeit not an optimal round like .22-250 and a less-than-adequate deer cartridge even depending on the bullet. Because of the early availability and price of the SKS, its 7.62 x 39 round was a more adequate but still sub-optimal deer round.

    Warning - some snark above‽ (-9.50; -7.03)‽ "We're like a strip club with a million bouncers and no strippers." (HBO's Real Time, January 18, 2013)

    by annieli on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 10:01:34 PM PST

  •  Magic Christian... an old favorite movie (0+ / 0-)

    not too many people know it... or have seen it but the satire in it is magnificent... pokes holes in so much hypocrisy... great movie.

    That clip is perfect

    Pogo & Murphy's Law, every time. Also "Trust but verify" - St. Ronnie (hah...)

    by IreGyre on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 04:46:59 AM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site