Of course, for hunters who don’t think their hunting guns are in any real danger should note this reaction from our favorite Brady Board member, who has been on a tear of inanity lately, and who I must credit for pointing me to this video:
The thing is, he mentioned at about 2:20 or so into the video that you could see the damage done to the soft tissue. Since we all know that no one is going to “carve” a turkey by shooting the raw bird, this reference must have been for how well one can inflict soft tissue damage on a human being. Or did he mean to a deer perhaps? Does one want to do a lot of soft tissue damage to a deer? What would be left of the deer for eating? I don’t know. I’m just asking. Why would he mention this at all? A .460 Magnum is a powerful gun all right. He made his point but he had to carry on for 4 minutes showing the slow motion video of the turkey exploding over and over again. I’m sure the video was meant to be funny. It’s pathetic actually.
In the interest in developing some holiday season understanding between the two sides, I will describe all this to our pearl-clutching opponent. The “humor” is that as soon as one mentions they have a rifle chambered in .460 Weatherby Magnum, which few would disagree deserves application of the term “elephant gun,” it becomes immediately apparent to the astute viewer what is about to transpire if the intended target is a turkey. That is, what we would technically call “way too much gun” for the intended target. The end result does not disappoint. All living things have what we would refer to as “soft tissue.” Hunters are very aware of what rifle bullets do to “soft tissue.” That your brain immediately drew the analogy to “human” says a lot more about you than it does about us, or Jerry Miculek, doesn’t it?
10 thoughts on “Carving Your Turkey Jerry Miculek Style”
How exactly do they live with the fact that they know absolutely nothing about guns, yet deem themselves worthy to legislate laws on guns?
I mean that’s like a 10th grade drop out lobbying against nuclear power. If you don’t know anything about the subject, how exactly do you manage to get through that in your head without feeling horrible?
Yep, that happens. I’d guess most nuclear power protestors are sophomoric at best.
“How exactly do they live with the fact that they know absolutely nothing about guns, yet deem themselves worthy to legislate laws on guns?”
A quote I like, though I forget who said it, goes approximately “The problem isn’t that Americans know too little, it’s that most of what they do know isn’t true.”
That transcends all issues and ideologies.
That sounds like something that Reagan said:
My favorite part of her blog post is the part where she calls Mr. Miculek “this guy”, like he’s some random dude off the street.
It’s unfortunate that tragedy breaks people sometimes, but if her sister was drowned instead of shot she’d be out trying to ban water. Honoring loved ones through cat-lady type obsessions is an interesting addition to the KÃ¼bler-Ross model.
Is this how they make turkey hash???
â€œThe problem isnâ€™t that Americans know too little, itâ€™s that most of what they do know isnâ€™t true.â€
Edwin H. Armstrong, father of FM radio, quoted it often as “It’s not the things we we don’t know that are the problem, but the things we do know that ain’t so.” Mark Twain used it and seems to have got it from 19th-Century humorist “Josh Billings” (Henry Wheeler Shaw), in dialect and plain English, the latter as: “I honestly believe it is better to know nothing than to know what ain’t so.” But Billings credited Socrates, and there you are.
Grr, the Armstrong quote should be, â€œItâ€™s not the things that we donâ€™t know that are the problem, but the things we do know that ainâ€™t so.â€ Never edit after a Thanksgiving nap.
I’m pretty sure there is a Fudd going “Well I don’t need a .460 to hunt deer with, I don’t care if they ban them.”
Comments are closed.