Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!zazen!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!erb1!osnome!hunting
From: crs@beta.lanl.gov (Charlie Sorsby)
Newsgroups: rec.hunting
Subject: Re: FOR **** SALE *** 1973 INTERNATIONAL SCOUT
Message-ID: <374@erb1.engr.wisc.edu>
Date: 16 Mar 91 12:15:25 GMT
Sender: news@erb1.engr.wisc.edu
Lines: 66
Approved: hunting@osnome.che.wisc.edu



From: crs@beta.lanl.gov (Charlie Sorsby)
Tim,

I guess that I lean in the same direction as your comments in the
"vaporizing squirrels" post.  That the poster, later, posted a
clarification to the effect that it was a joke notwithstanding, I
think that such posts to a *public forum* are ill advised.

Even as we write and read here, anti-hunting groups are doing all
that they can to eliminate sport hunting.  I believe that we must
make a choice:  Do we want to make jokes that can be taken out of
context by our enemies and used against us or do we want to
continue being allowed to hunt?

Am I overdramatizing the situation?  Perhaps, but I doubt it.
Every time an uncommitted voter hears or reads such "jokes" there
is a good chance that he or she will join the camp of those who
consider all hunters to be beer-swilling, trash-leaving, road-sign-
shooting, butchers.

There is a saying about the police, as I recall, to the effect that
they must be better than ordinary citizens in order not to be
though worse.

I believe that hunters, indeed all those who use firearms, had
damned well better adopt that same philosophy before it's too late.
If that means reserving such jokes for *nonpublic* fora, then I say
so be it.

I don't want my sport taken away from me.

>    How did a car advertisement get posted? Are "Sporting equipment" adds
>    going to be next?
> 
> Sure.  "Rifle for sale" and "looking to buy a good used bow" seem like
> valid topics to me.  I doubt that such articles would be numerous
> enough to cause problems.  If readers of the group disagree, let me
> know.  If there sufficient objection, I will reject such posts.

I agree about *occasional* advertisments of this type as long as
they don't drown out everything else.  As to the car ad, was
distribution of that one geographically restricted on the USENET
group?  I think in that case, it probably should have been.  In the
case of smaller things that can be shipped, I don't think that is
necessary although that may suggest another thing that should be
posted in a periodic faq post:

	For those just entering our sport who don't already
	know: Interstate shipment of firearms can only be
	between federally licensed dealers and, in any case,
	*all* such transfers must be in accordance of the laws
	of the state or states involved.

> In the original post, I mentioned that I had problems with the post.
> IMHO, it was on the border between "eliminating pests" and "vaporizing
> animals just for fun".  Rather than reject the post, I posted it and
> noted my reservations.  

See above.

Best,

Charlie Sorsby						"I'm the NRA!"
	crs@lanl.gov