( Average reading time 5 minutes; less links and video. )
A few words regarding the below clip from "The View".
The "View" excerpts and clip are from the Friday, February 16, 2018 program. In the segment, the subject is the Parkland Florida tragedy and the inevitable conversation on gun-control, mostly from Joyless Behar and Sunny Hostin, who display a fundamental lack of knowledge on what they speak. (You're not surprised by this, though).
They'll never read or be made aware of this post on my limitedly viewed blog, but if Joyless and Sunny think it's easy to legally acquire a handgun or longarm (aka long-gun), then I challenge them to experience the process of legally obtaining one, especially any type of handgun, revolver, semi, or other. Please Mss's Behar and Hostin - undertake the process of legally purchasing a gun, especially a handgun. Afterwards, let us know if it was EASY.
Neither Joyless or Sunny will do this - I fear they would find truths that drastically conflict with their anti-gun rhetoric and incorrect and pre-formulated, sacredly-held beliefs. Oh, and one big deterrent for Joyless to actually experience the gun-purchasing process is that she'll have to provide her age and date of birth; something she probably avoids at all cost.
And pretending for a moment that the Second Amendment and hunting have anything to do with each other, which they don't, do note (I duplicated it a few times) when Sunny Hostin physically displays a "rat-a-tat-tat" semi-circle firing "spray" approach - implying this firing pattern is adapted or used in hunting. No true, respectable hunter (of which 99.99999% are) hunts in this manner. On a battlefield, armed and fighting for your life, yes, you may indeed fire off a sequence of shots in a pattern she demonstrates. Applying her method to hunting is abhorred by legitimate, respectful hunters.
Yes, I'm sure somewhere, some time, some rogue or inexperienced hunter, or a poacher, fired off a few rounds attempting to kill prey like that, but there is always a tiny fraction in anything that abuse, misuse and/or deliberately ignore the sportsmanship of [ fill in the blank ]. To be redundant, no respectable hunter would ever hunt, or fire off a series of shots, as "demonstrated" by Ms. Hostin. It's extremely dangerous to others in your hunting party and to anyone else in the area, hunting or not. Experienced hunters know that, at most - you have two shots to fell your prey. Not "Tommy-Gun-rat-a-tat-tat" style. Ms. Hostin has seen too many gangsta movies.
Regarding Ms. Hostin's comment of why don't hunters use a shotgun; many hunters do use a shotgun. The selection of shotgun or rifle and gauge or caliber depends on what it is one is hunting and its size. I know deer hunters who use a .12 gauge (with a slug) for deer. Other, more powerful rifles are often preferred because the IDEA IS to fell and kill the prey as quickly and painlessly as possible. No respectable hunter wants to see their prey suffer. A clean "kill" shot is always preferred - always. Why? If the bullet strikes a larger animal, a deer, or an elk, hitting it in its hind-quarters, it often continues running or limping along, bleeding out and suffering. A quick kill helps in preserving the flesh from trauma that comes from suffering. The more prolonged the dying process, the more the tissue damage. The more tissue damage, the higher degree of trauma of edible meat, rendering it "tough" as opposed to smooth and "steak"-y. I don't believe in hunting any animal that you do not plan to eat, or at least have processed and give to others to eat. I don't believe in trophy hunting. Seriously...you need the head of a tiger, elephant or boar hanging on the wall? Now, if you mount a deer head with a 26-point antler-rack that you killed and consumed, I have no issue with that. Or, the taxidermy of animal or fish, again, as long as it is used as food.
I needed to move on with publishing a couple (rather easy) updates on Tech and one on News after publishing the post about my late brother. I didn't plan on updating anything for a while after the two updates following that one. But I realized that it is exactly one year today that I spent the day with my late brother who had ordered a S&W 9mm which had arrived. I rode along and we spent that afternoon at a gun shop. His transaction took about twenty minutes, all paperwork previously approved. We spent about three hours looking at other merchandise and my brother spoke with every customer and employee there. Slightly unusual because he was rather reserved. I kept thinking, he doesn't know these people, and he's carrying on lengthy conversations with all of them - when are we going to get out of here? Those moments meant a lot to me at the time, but I wanted to get the heck out, but he kept striking up one new conversation with one person and then another. And then it became fun to watch and see who he would next talk to and about what. So today I hold those moments even more significant and, in a way, appropriate for an update today, on this subject.
Joyless also, knowingly or unknowingly (my money is on "unknowingly") attempts to use the annual amount of U.S. gun sales as the dollar amount of political contributions from the NRA as representing the dollar amount used as lobbying by the National Rifle Associate (NRA.org). She is, of course, wrong and grossly off-point. What else have we come to expect from Joyless? Joyless also states, "some of these guys..." [ I'm interpreting her words as "politicians receiving NRA money" ], "...get $3,000.00." Somehow, a $3 Grand campaign donation is not that much of an amount considering the large dollars of campaign contributions from other organizations.
[Spelling error fixed 2/20/2018]