Welcome to the Colorado AR-15 Shooters Club Discussion Forums.
Cooper said the final word on this (as he often did) in his article "This Problem of Image" available in To Ride, Shoot Straight and Speak the Truth
Last time I read it the 2nd amendment didn't include a damn thing about hunting. So what exactly does looks of my AR15 have to do with hunting since that isn't what my god given right to own firearms is about?
sounds to me like the guy is a snob and believes looks are what count.
Wonder what he would say about duck hunting with a saiga? Or hunting water buffalo or elephant with a barret .50 cal?
Come to think of it, if he's so focused on hunting arms, I hunt with my ARs....
"Owning a handgun doesn't make you armed any more than owning a guitar makes you a musician." - Col. Jeff Cooper
The article is no longer up on their website, but an individual's letter to the editor from Broomfield, CO is.
You might also contacet Cross Trail Outfitters and let them know how you feel about Darnell. http://www.teamcto.org/index_files/advisors.htm
IMO it is just another bite out of the apple. death buy a thousand needles. I dont believe it is right for somebody to tell me I have to have a permit too drive a car I can understand age limits but common permit or not I am paying taxes to build new roads am I not? that makes them just as much mine as yours right? I have to register my car who's buisnes is it what kind of car I drive except mine? Oh right so they can tax me more right? I have to register my dog too again whose buiness is it if I have a dog or not and what kind except mine? So whose buisnes is it except mine what kind of gun I own or hunt with? NOBODIES!!! Who's buisness is it how I raise my children? If I teach them at home or send them too school? weather I teach god or evolution? All it comes down too is they are taking our personell rights one by one. Not only about guns but in how we raise our kids were they go to church. I mean people get so upset about guns and I do too but when was the last time you saw a group of parents in a school saying you will not teach my kids about a certain subject and pull their kids out of the system? And that kind of stuff makes me just as mad as them trying to tell me that the way I think about guns is old outdated and is no longer valid because human nature has changed and the way I think the way my kids should raised or my religion all of it is being taken away one little piece at a time and it is sad.
Ps I like these threads
http://www.sanmarcosrecord.com/archi...332155811.html
Rowe H. Ray: Managing Editor -rray@sanmarcosrecord.com
Published: November 28, 2009 02:57 pm
That dog don’t hunt
By Rowe Ray
Managing Editor
In a Nov. 12 piece concerning the production of the AR-15 sporting rifle, Daily Record “Local Outdoors” columnist Jim Darnell opined that the weapon has become a lightning rod for the anti-gun movement.
Though he took the anti-gun movement to task several times in the column for misunderstanding the facts or simply ignoring them, he also dared to say that by designing this rifle to look like an assault weapon, gun manufacturers had not chosen their 2nd Amendment rights battle very carefully.
Darnell, an award-winning outdoors writer, spared no ink throughout his column explaining the differences in the AR-15 and an actual assault rifle.
Neither did he pull any punches in his discussion of the roles played in the misunderstanding of the AR-15 by the media and by those citizens who were too quick to jump to conclusions just because of the design of the sporting rifle.
He also, however, expressed his opinion that gun manufacturers could have sidestepped the fiery confrontation over the AR-15 had they simply avoided such an “inflammatory design.”
Simply put, he said the production of the AR-15 was a “big mistake.”
Right, wrong or somewhere in between, Darnell expressed an opinion ... an opinion based on many years as a hunter, fisherman, outdoorsman and columnist.
This newspaper has received a few e-mails in recent days, all of which have come from out of state and all critical of Darnell’s statements about the AR-15 and the gun manufacturers. Some even suggested this newspaper cease publication of his column.
To that suggestion we answer with one of our own ... Don’t hold your breath.
Jim stays. His column stays. His opinions stay.
Those who purport to stand for their 2nd Amendment rights by attempting to pull the rug from beneath others’ 1st Amendment rights are on mighty shaky ground.
That dog, as they say, just don’t hunt. RHR
How ironic. Jim Darnell gets to say his piece. Express his opinions. Others, however, who disagree with him and voice their opinions, are chastised for doing so. And it somehow matters that they're not locals. Huh.Originally Posted by cebeu
So the 1st Amendment, like the 2nd, only applies to certain people.
Mr Ray...you're a moron.
(Nevermind the obvious fact that the government isn't trying to stifle Darnell's 1st Amend right, therefore Mr Ray's argument is pretty stupid since it isn't a 1st Amend issue. Like I said...he's a moron.)
Wait, wait, wait...
All of a sudden not supporting a column from a man you find repugnant is "pulling the rug" out of his 1st amendment rights?
Where's my weekly column in this paper, then? The editor is pulling the rug out from under my 1st amendment rights!
I sent in this email:
Dear Sir,
I was disgusted to read Jim Darnell's ignorant abuse of the 2nd Amendment - with the audacity to claim that guns that have a bad history, or look a certain way, are somehow less worthy of protection than "sporting" arms - and now I am outraged to see an apparently educated man, "Managing Editor" of a newspaper, no less, abuse the 1st Amendment with equal disregard of reality.
It bears repeating, a million times if necessary, that the 1st Amendment is a restriction on the government. The purpose is to keep the government from censoring any words you or I might wish to publish or share with others. When we your readers send you angry letters, expressing displeasure at the opinions of one of your writers, we are not "assaulting his 1st Amendment rights" - we are, as customers, telling you what we want from your product. We are not obligated to support ignorant trash - and publically disagreeing with, disapproving of and wanting the firing of one of your writers does not constitute an assault on his 1st Amendment rights (we are not crashing your gates and threatening you with harm if you do not fire him,) but the exercising of our own.
I had the pleasure of living in San Antonio for a period of time a few years ago. I kept up with your paper online to keep up with local news, since some of my friends still live there. No more. There is no excuse for the chief editor of a newspaper to display such disgusting ignorance of what the 1st Amendment - the one amendment I would expect a newspaper man, above all, to be intimately familiar with - means and I refuse to support it in any way, however slight. I don't expect the economic impact to be great but I hope you are ashamed of the display of ignorance you put on for all to see.
Santiago Valenzuela
^^
Both very nice responses.
hahaha wow... Pancho and Foxtrot, those are both very nice responses and I'm glad you shared them with us all. Thank you.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
