&*!#@* Hunters!

[7wt]

With all due respect to you 7wt, Civil rights are simply legal rights provided by man, for man. Man is inherently flawed, to suggest that the laws written by men are beyond debate reads like an emotional responce and not one that had been given much thought.

Well if you feel that way then you can gladly give you freedom and liberty away, but don't take mine. Again, people who disagree with you may not have thought it out fully but I am not one of those people. I just disagree with you. The only thought not well addressed is the concept that it is possible to disagree with you with out it being emotional like Vince's comment. If you honestly believe without man you would have no rights than you are free to think that way. I know where my rights come from and it sure isn't a bunch of legislators.

Now to actually correct your statement, civil rights are rights acknowledged by man, not given to by man. While man is inherently flawed mainly due to original sin, it doesn't mean that any further debate on previously addressed topics would be correct either. You may not realize it but you are suggesting that there is no absolute truth and all man made laws are subject to the political wind and the whims of man. That is not a world that I want to reside. You may find it comfortable however.

You have to ask yourself why the 2nd amendment was written the way it was. Where did the right come from if the only written record of the concept clearly states that the right shall not be infringed? It doesn't state that it gives you the right because it is understood that that right is pre-existing. So any amendment to the 2nd would have to read that the government has the right to infringe upon your God given rights. Now if you can point out where I have not thought about this please let me know so I can educate myself.

 

[Lost Canadian]

You placed a great many pejorative assumptions on my words. I simply stated that mans laws, even those entrenched and described as constitutional law should fair game for debate. I never said that the constitutional law of a country should be easily changed, as you implied, only that people should have the freedom to debate its contents.

 

[7wt]

You placed a great many pejorative assumptions on my words. I simply stated that mans laws, even those entrenched and described as constitutional law should fair game for debate. I never said that the constitutional law of a country should be easily changed, as you implied, only that people should have the freedom to debate its contents.

No, you clearly stated that civil rights were granted by man for man. I even qouted you. Your beliefs that it should be debatable stem from your belief that man grants rights. I did not once imply that any changes in the Constitution would be easy, you did that in order to discount my argument. I stated that it would be open for changed based on political whims, it would still however have to go through proper ratification. It seems as if you are backing off of you stance that man grants rights. That is good because I would hate to point out to you that any right given by man is a right that could be taken away my man.

 

[Lost Canadian]

No, you clearly stated that civil rights were granted by man for man. I even qouted you. Your beliefs that it should be debatable stem from your belief that man grants rights. I did not once imply that any changes in the Constitution would be easy, you did that in order to discount my argument. I stated that it would be open for changed based on political whims, it would still however have to go through proper ratification. It seems as if you are backing off of you stance that man grants rights. That is good because I would hate to point out to you that any right given by man is a right that could be taken away my man.

I'm not arguing semantics. I said Civil rights are "legal" rights provided by man, for man. I'm not speaking of natural rights.

 

[7wt]

I'm not arguing semantics. I said Civil rights are "legal" rights provided by man, for man. I'm not speaking of natural rights.

Maybe that is where our disagreement comes from. I believe that gun ownership is a natural right. I believe the framers felt this way too based on the language used. That means that any argument to limit said right is an argument not worth having and not open for debate. As far as a mental exercise I am willing to debate it all day long, as long as it doesn't lead to an actual loss of personal rights.

Try taking this guys guns away....:gunt: and by this guy I mean the cartoon guy, not me.

 

[Lost Canadian]

You would have had no argument from me had you not said "that people value their civil rights more than they value a debate of ideas." It's peoples visions and ideas that lead to the introduction and creation of civil (legal) rights in the first place. Civil right is designed to provide protections and privileges to citizens through law.

Anyway, sorry for taking this way way way off topic.

Back to the original post.

 

[DesertRose]

What's missing are people with good minds who can think beyond quoting a science fiction writer and believing it's credible.

Whoa, guys - this is getting personal and unkind.

Lance, THANK YOU for trying yet again to get us off the gun issue! But I suspect it won't work. :gunt:

 

[Jonathan Hanson]

7WT and Lost Canadian, I think you two did a pretty good job on backing off on a debate that always gets heated. But, um, Vince?

Someone actually started a 2nd amendment thread in general. But it seemed to die because no one but the choir was singing.

As Roseann mentioned earlier, this has nothing to do with guns. Does anyone believe that when the bozos we've been discussing go riding without guns that they suddenly don't trespass or litter?

 

[Desertdude]

I think the hunting community is far too dismissive of this problem, out of fear of alienating "fellow" hunters. I disagree. I believe responsible hunters should be doing everything we can to drive this mutant subspecies extinct. Confront them, photograph them and report them, whatever. Hunting (much like backcountry driving) is under enough pressure from outside groups; we don't need to be giving those groups more ammunition from within our own ranks.

Any thoughts?

So how do you convince/educate others of their self policing rights, if the ground rules seem to have changed from a gentlemen's sport to a free for all ?

 

[Jonathan Hanson]

Aye, there's the rub.

 

[Clutch]

I think we need to chip in and get this for Johnathan for Christmas.

 

[Jonathan Hanson]

That thing plus Tannerite. Christmas fun!

 

[7wt]

That thing plus Tannerite. Christmas fun!

That may just be your solultion, Tannerite. Sprinkle a couple of these around your place and the hunters won't want to hunt exploding deer.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ue28iK-xChs&feature=related

 

[snipecatcher]

They do it differently in Texas. They set up a timed feeder to get the deer good and trained then sit in a stand so they can make their 50 yard shot with the new 300 WSM. The one thing they have in common is their desire to leave beer cans and various other discarded stuff. The one thing they don't have in common is in Texas there are very few public hunting lands so what little resource is here gets messed up pretty fast. You problem Mr. Hanson (I checked to avoid the rapier) is the mocrowaive society we live in where everyting has to be easy and quick. I am not sure there is any deffense against it either. There is alot of money to be made off hunting licsenses and sale of this years latest and greates 600 yard flat shooter. What ever happened to fair chase? Actually stalking your prey? Bless Tred Barta's soul for putting the way it should be on TV complete with his failures and all.

We aren't ALL like that, though I would say about 75% of the hunters I know are, and it sickens me. Personally I prefer stalk hunting with my old Enfield, and lately I've gotten into bowhunting. By the way, while high fencing seems to be cheating, and I've thought it was too in the past, I'm starting to discover that most high fenced places are all that bad. My stepbrother witnessed a nice 10 point and a doe jump over the 8' high fence that our neighbor has around his land. We have 70 acres of low fenced land, and do our best to bring in the deer. I'm just happy to be out there, the scenery is beautiful, and watching the critters, whether deer, pigs, raccoons, bugs, anything, is an added bonus. That plus fresh venison!
-Dan

 

[snipecatcher]

nice

Haha, just saw the hunter Dan action figure. I actually have one of those on the mantle of my fireplace, it was given to me as a Christmas gift last year by a friend.
-Dan