TexasCHLforum.com

sjfcontrol wrote:
OK -- perhaps poorly worded. Hunting is an activity that may use firearms. That better? Obviously hunting does not require firearms.
Deer Stalking??

Yup, "stalking" -- in England, Scotland, "hunting" is considered a sport that involves the use of tracking dogs (deer, fox, etc.). "Stalking" is basically you and a scoped rifle, sneaking up on a deer.

And, yeah, I _do_ understand your point, but we have to exit the mentality that hunting is associated-with/enabled-by the 2A. They're mutually exclusive.

sjfcontrol wrote: (I agree, however, that hunting is just one activity protected by the 2nd amendment.)

No, in fact, hunting is _not_ protected by the 2A. Not in the least bit. Every right granted to you by the 2A does not give you a right to hunt. Think about it.

In case you think that the 2A is a necessary prerequisite, consider England's heavily regulated "deer stalking" laws. In fact, people that equivocate hunting with the second amendment make Democrats drool, because they are the linchpins to regulating the 2A into nothingness.

What I don't like, and never will like, is using ANY phrase related to hunting while discussing the second amendment. This is fundamentally disturbing because the second amendment has _absolutely nothing_ to do with hunting.

Not even the tiniest bit.

Our founding fathers would be aghast at anybody that would think or suggest it, and this is why Romney, the Republocrat, scares me. On the other hand, King Obama scares me more. *sigh*. I understand about the whole "compromise" thing, but why can't we have a genuine candidate that really groks the 2A? I honestly don't think we've had one since Teddy Roosevelt (and I'm not even sure I can completely back that one up).

Transcript of Romney's speech:
http://foxnewsinsider.com/2012/04/13/tr ... -st-louis/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;