The C.A.S.H. Courier Newsletter
Spring 2012 Issue
Ask Uncle Joe
Would you rather snail mail your question? Send it
to:
Ask Uncle Joe
PO Box 13815
Las Cruces NM 88013
Uncle Joe
gets a lot of mail so don't be offended if he cannot answer your question in
the Courier. Heck, he's gotta work a day job, too.
Letters are printed as received. They are unedited.
Dear Uncle Joe:
I understand and support the 2nd Amendment and want to
be able to own a personal weapon to protect my home and family from an
intruder. I thought this was the purpose of the NRA. Yet I see them
consistently commenting on hunting accidents when a story appears in the
news. Is there a connection between these 2 other than a firearm was
involved? I do not see that as an NRA issue from what I know about the
founding of that organization. An animal foraging in the woods is not
‘bearing arms’ against me.
Laura,
Arlington, VA
Dear Laura:
Thanks for writing. We don’t believe that the Second Amendment has
anything to do with hunting, and I’m sure the framers of The Constitution
would agree. The text of the amendment reads: “A well regulated Militia,
being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to
keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” We have no stance on gun
ownership per se, but we certainly have an opinion of gun use when its
purpose is to bring violence and death upon wildlife.
From our point of
view, the NRA is an organization that, for better or worse, defends gun
ownership with as few restrictions as possible. They have an ally in the
Supreme Court of the United States, which has repeatedly interpreted the
amendment to mean that individuals have the right to own guns for any lawful
purpose. Contrary to what many gun enthusiasts may believe, our mission to
ban sport hunting in all forms is not an assault on the Second Amendment. We
take no stand on people who own guns for non-violent recreational shooting
or for the security of their homes, possessions, and families. Many of our
members are gun owners, and many are staunch opponents of gun ownership. We
believe that wildlife protection is not a gun rights issue, and those who
are passionate about wildlife from both sides of the fence can find common
ground when it comes to sport hunting.
We wish the NRA would not be
involved in hunting issues, because it is not a matter of gun rights. Leave
hunting issues up to the experts: us.
Peace,
Uncle Joe
Dear Uncle Joe:
It looks like Ted Nugent is
up to his old tricks again. Shortly after being investigated by the Secret
Service for making comments that some understood to be a national security
threat, he was banned from hunting in Alaska for a year and was fined and
sentenced to probation for illegally killing a bear.
What’s wrong with
him?
Michael,
New York, NY
Dear Michael:
Ah - Ted Nugent.
Is there a more demented person on earth? If so, I’ve not heard of them.
Even hunting guides have called him “unethical” because “He shoots at
anything... He just likes to kill a lot of animals.” (From an article
entitled “Why Sit on the Beach When You Could Stab a Wild Pig?” in the July
25, 1995 edition of The Wall Street Journal). He somehow thinks he’s a
man because he kills dangerous, fearsome animals like squirrels, armadillos
and goats, but we don’t consider him to be much of a man - what we think of
him can’t be printed in this column.
One of his more recent quotes
intrigues us. “If Barack Obama becomes the next president in November,
again, I will either be dead or in jail by this time next year.” With that
stroke of brilliance he just may have secured another term for Obama. If
that comes to fruition, we certainly hope that he lives up to his promise.
Peace,
Uncle Joe
Dear Uncle Joe:
There
were over 600,000 hunters this season in the state of Wisconsin. Allow me to
restate that number: 600,000. Over the last several months,
Wisconsin’s hunters became the eighth largest army in the world. These men
deployed to the woods of a single American state, Wisconsin, to hunt with
firearms, and no one was killed. That number pales in comparison to the
930,000 who hunted the woods of Pennsylvania and Michigan’s 700,000 hunters,
all of whom have now returned home safely. If you get rid of hunting (which
you can’t do) you’ll be putting the security of the nation at risk. What
foreign army in their right mind would invade us since we’re a nation well
armed and ready to fight? Why? Thanks to hunters!
Mitch,
Appleton, WI
Dear Mitch:
Where on earth do you get your
information? The numbers you quote are very rough, but that’s not what
matters. What matters is that you’re nuts if you think there were no hunting
accidents in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan last year. Here are the
facts to set you straight: of the number of accidents we’ve been made aware
of (and this is only a small fraction of those that actually have occurred),
28 happened in Wisconsin, 15 took place in Pennsylvania, and 22 happened in
Michigan. Of these, 14 were fatal across the three states. Since we have
reason to believe that for every hunting accident we become aware of another
20 fly under our radar, the true number of accidents and fatalities is grim.
Are you really afraid that we’re going to be invaded by a foreign army?
Really? I guess we should never say never, but I’d buy a lottery ticket
before I’d believe anything like that could ever happen. Unless of
course, Canada decides to come and take our best hockey players. That
might happen.
Peace,
Uncle Joe
Go on to
Peter's Humor
Back to Spring 2012 Issue
Back to C.A.S.H. Courier Article Archive
|
