In response to:

When I Want a Progressive’s Opinion on What Guns I Should Have/Hunt with, I’ll Give it to Them

RHSimard Wrote: Jan 20, 2013 11:23 PM
In general, I get very riled when politicians argue that it's OK to ban (or tax or confiscate or whatever) anything because they think we don't "need it." That is irrelevant. Obama is on record as saying at after a certain point one has earned "enough" and doesn't "need" more, obviously suggesting that all excess past that is fair game for government to tax away. If they're going to ban something, it should be because it needs to be banned, and in this case, proving THAT need is going to be damn hard to do--and well should be.
Drifter33 Wrote: Jan 20, 2013 11:48 PM
The 2nd Amendment is part of the "Bill of Rights", not the "Bill of Needs".

"Need" is a very subjective term, of course. One "needs" what one places value upon for whatever reason. It is not for the government to determine individual need.
My buddy, Green Beret badass Bryan Sikes, shot a massive whitetail buck last week during our South Texas Purple Heart Adventure. He whacked said muy grande with a LaRue Tactical OBR chambered for the glorious .308 Win. round. Oh and BTW, Sikes used a high capacity magazine during this hunt.

For those of you who aren’t hip to the LaRue, it is a weapon that progressive darlings say we should not have because we don’t “need” such a weapon for hunting.

Hunting, according to these wizards of odd, is what they think our founding fathers had in mind when...

Related Tags: Guns Hunting Hunting Rights