Reply #131: Thank you

[primavera]

That was probably the most eloquent, succinct, and convincing defense of gun ownership I've heard to date. I will endeavour to be more respectful in the future.

First of all, be assured that I have no problem with people for whom hunting is a rich part of their lives and heritage. As a life-long birdwatcher, I share both the pleasure of being out in the great outdoors and the almost hunting-like stealthful tracking of one's quarry. What concerns me about gun ownership is therefore not that many people wish to own hunting rifles. What concerns me is that the positions consistently taken by organizations like the NRA to my mind have very little to do with a citizen's right to own and use a hunting rifle. Rather, they seem to be focussed on establishing a right to own extremely dangerous military-style weapons which were designed not for hunting or recreational use, but for the sole and express purpose of killing people.

I have yet to hear from even the most avid gun enthusiast a desire to use a 50 calibre for hunting purposes. Nor have I heard that child safety locks on guns compromise one's ability to hunt. Or that hunting is better faciliated by the employment of fingerprint-resistent coatings on weapons. Does it adversely affect a hunter's aim to register their weapon and undergo a background check? Yet it is against these measures that to my mind just seem like commonsense precautions to protect public safety that the NRA so vigorously lobbies.

This is what I don't understand. How do gun ownership proponents arrive at the conclusion that efforts to ensure that guns are used responsibly constitute an infringement upon their right to engage in innocent activities like hunting? I'm sorry, I just don't get that. The right to bear arms does not come with the right to use them irresponsibly or to the detriment of the safety of others. So why are measures designed to promote safe, responsible gun useage considered so objectionable?