“And they are appalled by the NRA’s shilling for the Bush Administration’s removal of federal protection of 58.5 million acres of Inventoried Roadless Areas.”

I dunno ’bout you, but I don’t have the moohla to keep a string of pack animals around nor pay someone else that does for hire. When I go hunt, my kills have to be within a couple of miles of the truck or accessible by ATV to get it out. These goddamn “Roadless Areas” have lots of roads, they just don’t exist on an inventory and/or are closed to wheeled access. Very few can afford money or time wise to penetrate very far on foot or hoseback. So, he’s also a shill for the hunting elite too and Joe Sixpack and his weekend hunting on public lands can just piss off.

MC, you should get with the Gunblogs. It’s a free blog Unc set up for whoever wants to put something out.

Thanks for the invite!

I think it’s about time I got more involved, be it blogging, writing my congresscritters or dragging more of my friends to the range.

Whatcha bet they view the 2nd Amendment in so narrow a manner as to give individuals almost no rights?

Uh, pretty much. It might be Tourettes.

I don’t know who Mc is, but that was an impressive post he made.

That would be me!

I’ve been reading Uncle and a few other blogs for a while, but I’ve never left comments. Well KTK’s post struck a nerve, and I decided now was as good as any time to speak up.

I’ve only ventured over to LeanLeft once or twice before this, and I never read any of KTK’s posts. Is he really incapable of stating his position without insulting or slandering someone every other paragraph?

I still have to wonder about the tendency for gun-grabbers to trot out the old “Guns are nothing more than an extension of your very small penis” argument; it seems to me that it needs a name such as when someone Godwin’s a discussion. I think we should get gunnies together and put a name to it. Should we name it the Gun Phallusy?

Don’t you get it? To KTK and his ilk, the definition of “assault weapon” is “whatever Teddy Kennedy and Sarah Brady say they are.”

No wonder he can’t tell us the “strict” definition.

“We are willing to consider creative new ways to identify weapons that have been used for criminal purposes and wish the National Rifle Association were more cooperative in this effort.”

Blah, what an ass… He setup that sentence stating this just before:

“…we do not support the creation of new laws designed to restrict the 2nd Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens…”

It looks like as long as the liberals are willing to sell any new gun control laws as “designed” to stop crime, he will support it. When it further erodes the right to bear arms, I guess he, and his kind of gun-owners, will be simple surprised of that outcome. (No matter what history has shown happens with EVERY other feel-good law supporting further gun-control.)

Definition of insane. Maybe he can answer just one question: http://blog.joehuffman.org/2004/12/15/Just+One+Question.aspx

And Wray is a shill for the anti-gun American Hunters and Shooters Association.

I was wondering how many people the WaPo had to call to get a quote like that so they could spin the story the way they did.