times are a little different than a few hundred years ago when civilians needed a firearm to protect themselves against the government
While I will admit that times are different, I still see the need to have this tool available. Government overreaching is well documented, and in many "modern" cultures disarming the populace was simply the first step in subjugation. It can, and has happened. Even in the United states it does happen--ever heard of Ruby Ridge? how about that poor slob in california gunned down while in handcuffs lying prone on the ground? I'll keep clinging to my gun just in case. The founding father's made sure I have the right to do so.
Do you really think you are going to be using your T/C Pro Hunter to fend off the government in a dispute
Obviously not, that's what I have my dangerous .50 Cal CVA for[rofl]Clearly it's about sporting arms, collectors arms, and the plain jane right to go to the range once a week without pledging my first born child as collateral. But we have to be dilligent about preserving all aspects of the right to bear arms--not just the one's we hunt with. Once you conceed that you don't realy wan't that BMG so you'll give up the right to get one, that's a step in the anti-gun agenda achieved. Gun owners must present a unified front!
What did you get your PHD in
I have my AA in Liberal Arts, my AS in Criminal Justice, my BA in philosphy, and my J.D. (Juris Doctor-doctorate in law)