People hunting.

The BBQ Pit
41

here is some of what those who were there during the formulation of the 2nd amendment said:

Arms in the hands of citizens [may] be used at individual discretion. . . in private self-defence . . . ." John Adams, A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America 475 (1787-8)

No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms," Thomas Jefferson, Proposed Virginia Constitution (1776) I T Jefferson Papers 344 (J. Boyl ed. 1950)

“to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them . . .” George Mason, 3 Elliot Debates 380

So the intent was for self defense and for liberty.

Now convince me that the current anti-gun pundits know more about the constitution than those who created it.

Mr. President, any word on that?

We can’t be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans."
– Bill Clinton
President of the United States in USA Today, March 11, 1993

42

Ryan:

Why are you resentful of the characterization if it does not apply to you? I spoke specifically of gun freaks, I did not say all owners of guns. I am perfectly aware that there are many people who do not hunt, yet own guns because they are convinced that their lives are threatened.

And if hunters don’t hunt for amusement/fun, why do they do it? While they may eat what they kill, that is NOT why they do it. They do it because they ENJOY doing it. They LIKE TO KILL. You can dress it up any way you like, but if they did not derive pleasure from the act of killing, they would not hunt. It is leisure, sport, entertainment, FUN. And I find the idea that anyone would KILL for FUN nauseating.

(Yes, I eat meat. I also hate the way animals are treated in the corporate version of animal husbandry, and seek free-range meat whenever possible. If I had to kill the animals I ate myself, I would surely become a vegetarian in short order. It is not the eating of animals I object to, it is taking pleasure in the act of killing them.)

And by the way, your portrayal of the quick, clean kill that does not cause suffering is the exception, not the rule.

As for home invasion robberies, etc. I never claimed that no one is ever a victim of violent crime. What I said, and what is true, is that the likelihood of it happening to most of us, and most particularly the people who are most likely to use that as their reason for owning guns, is on a par with being struck by lightening.

PLdennison:

The courts once held that “separate but equal” was possible, too. The courts are not infallible (Witness the recent decision that suing a sitting president wouldn’t interfere with his work.) and I think they have missed the boat here. And I am certainly no constitutional scholar, but I know there are many who side with me on this. So it goes back to a matter of interpretation.

And all that aside, it doesnt’ matter anyway. The genie is out of the bottle and the best we can hope for now is regulation and enforcement of existing law, much as I might like to amend the constitution. (And then again, I might not. I would want a gun in one particular cicumstance: the breakdown of social order brought about by some disaster. I dont’ feel the need to own a gun now because I dont’ feel that there is a significant chance I’d need it. I do feel that I might need it in case of a massive earthquake, or if Y2K turns out to be as bad as some people fear. But so long as our society remains essentially functional, owning a gun is an invitation to trouble.)

Radar Ralf:

You are evidently a thoughtful, informed, and intedlligent person whose contributions are of interest to me. Could you make it a little easier by spacing your paragraphs? Thanks.

Stoidela

43

Thor
Member posted 06-02-99 09:28 AM

Gee, Thor; I wonder how the populace of Iceland feels about that characterization.

44

Of course not, but in an instance such as this, when the language in the Bill of Rights is consistent throughout and has been consistently interpreted, you need an extremely compelling reason to convince the courts that “the people” means something other than “the people.” In fact, throughout our history, whenever the question of to whom “the people” refers has been addressed, the definition has overwhelmingly been broadened rather than narrowed.

45

Monty wrote:

Gee, Thor; I wonder how the populace of Iceland feels about that characterization.
OK, I’ll bite: Iceland?

46

Thor - FYI there is a poster here abouts named Thorsomethingorother who as well as being a jerk is also from Iceland. If you have been encountering what you might think is unwarrented hostility, it is probably due to people confusing you with the other Thor.

47

Thanks for the info. I live in Colorado, not Iceland. I was wondering about some of the hostile responses I was getting.

Appologies, Monty. I did not understand the context.

48

What I meant was that contrary to what most people think, much of the damage that comes from guns in the hands of criminals is inflicted upon other criminals. More specifically, at least around here, guns accompany drug deals, and when drug deals go wrong, the guns get pulled out. Arming the general population isn’t going to help this situation. The types of guns I was referring to are handguns and military assault weapons - basically anything that’s not a flare gun or a hunting rifle.

Many people seem to be concerned that the criminals will have guns, and their victims will not. I do not believe that this is a valid argument, since the odds (assuming you are a law-abiding, nice sort of person) that your gun will be used in an accidental shooting (by, say, your five-year-old) far outweigh the odds that a crime will be committed against you in such a way that you will be able to defend yourself with your gun.

And yes, it’s a harsh position, but I do NOT have a problem with criminals shooting other criminals. There are degrees and exceptions to this of course, but our justice system (and yours, too - to a far worse degree) is overloaded and if the criminals are going to police themselves to some extent, that’s great.

49

Hey, just remember:

GUNS don’t kill people…

It’s the bullets that do it.

President of the Vernon Dent fan club.

50

Stoidela said:
“And if hunters don’t hunt for amusement, fun, why do they do it? While they may eat what they kill, that is NOT why they do it. They do it because they ENJOY doing it. They LIKE TO KILL. You can dress it up any way you like, but if they did not derive pleasure from the act of killing, they would not hunt. It is leisure, sport, FUN. And I find the idea that anyone would KILL for FUN nauseating.”

Stoidela, your proctologist called- they found your head.

I find your assumptions about MY reasons for hunting nauseating. The deer population where I live can swell to the point where the herd begins to die of starvation and disease. When the population goes up, so do the number of licenses issued. Thinning out the herd is WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT, not cruelty.
When I hunt, I do it with deep respect, not malice. It is no different than euthanizing an animal which would have died (a long agonizing death) anyway.
I completely clean the carcass, and the meat goes to family, friends, and the area’s homeless shelters. No waste. You DID say you were okay with free-range meat, and it doesn’t get any more “free-range” than that. Or is it okay with you to kill chickens and cows but not deer or game birds? What is the difference here?

And as far as the house invasion bit goes, believe me, it happens more than you think, and even in “quiet” areas like mine. Owning a gun may not save my life, but I can at least pull the trigger on myself rather than than be raped. Some things you shouldn’t have to live through twice.

PR

51

Prairie Rose sez (ever so charmingly):

“Stoidela, your proctologist called- they found your head.”

Jeez, what is it with you people around here that you can’t have a lively debate without resorting to snotty little swipes like that? Tsk tsk…very uncivilized.

Now, about your actual points…

I am absolutely clear and comfortable with the idea of wildlife management (although it wouldn’t be as necessary if people weren’t so hellbent on exterminating natural predators like wolves! We keep creating the problems that then need solving.) But here’s what I want to know: why do YOU do it? If it’s simply a matter of wildlife management, and no one is ENJOYING it, why not just send a bunch of rangers out to do the deed and have done with it? Why are you and all the hunters eagerly lining up to be the ones to do the killing? Hmmm? Seems to me somebody is having a grand 'ol time blowing holes in living things.

And perhaps it’s not you. Perhaps there isn’t the slightest rush or thrill in it for you, perhaps you alone, among the thousands of hunters in this land, go forth to do your killing with a heavy heart and a tear rolling down your cheek as you take aim. Let’s say, for the hell of it, that that is true. You going to tell me that you are REPRESENTATIVE of the typical hunter? Not bloody likely.

SO I shall modify my statement: MOST hunters hunt because they LIKE IT. They get a thrill out of KILLING. Because if they did not, they would not do it. No one is going to spend thousands of dollars on guns and gear and licenses because they want to do their duty in caring for the herds. Baloney.

Stoidela

52

Aha. In here spouting your same hypocrisy? Dead is dead, and whether anyone derives pleasure from killing the meat laid on your table is irrelevant. What you’re saying is “Killing animals is ok, as long as I don’t know the mechanics or emotional state of the executioners.” Feh.

53

Nickrz:

Irrelevant to you. And for more on this, see the cats and dogs post.

Stoidela

54

Stoidela,

How many hunters have you actually known? To say that all of us are considerate wildlife management types, or all crazy guns nuts is invalid. However, from the number of hunters I have known (many, thank you, and I was raised amongst many), the population tends to be about a bell-shaped curve of very few that are of the former type, and very few of the latter (gun nuts).
For your information, around here the rangers DO help thin out herds. I guess I should have said that in my earlier post. But they simply do not have the time and resources to do all that is needed.
And hunting, like many hobbies, is about as expensive as you WANT to make it. I don’t even own a single gun (I bow-hunt).
And as far as letting the wolves come back, the problem is that along with eating deer, they tend to prey on other species that the park service people would rather they didn’t nosh on (including kids perhaps). If only we could teach the wolves to eat only deer, and only a certain number… :slight_smile:

And as far as my “uncharming and uncivilized” remark goes, Stoidela, you are in the BBQ pit. Making blanket statements about a person’s motives for ANYTHING will probably get you a little singed in the real world, as well as a place (here) meant for volatile discussion. If you were really that offended, think more before you post.

PR (venison steaks, anyone?)

55

Prairie Rose: evidently the only reason your proctologist hasn’t called is that (s)he needs to delve further before finding your head.

The comment of yours above shows that you are completely insensitive to the fate and feelings of those who consider suicide to be a far greater sin than submission to a violent rape.

FYI, someone very close to me faced such a choice. She is alive today because she isn’t the ass that you are.

56

Prairie Rose: evidently the only reason your proctologist hasn’t called is that (s)he needs to delve further before finding your head.

The comment of yours above shows that you are completely insensitive to the fate and feelings of those who consider suicide to be a far greater sin than submission to a violent rape.

FYI, someone very close to me faced such a choice. She is alive today because she isn’t the ass that you are.

And before anyone jumps all over me about the sin remark: NO, I DO NOT THINK BEING RAPED IS A SIN. It’s the rapist who’s doing the sinning; however, there are so-called religious folks who think that the victims are guilty too. They’re asses, also.

57

Prairie Rose:

I have known…hmmm…maybe 5. I do not choose to make friends with hunters, because I do not make friends with people who kill animals for sport. My father in law is a hunter, but he is not my friend.

So if only a few hunters fall on the extremes of “gun nut” vs consider wildlife managers…how would you charterize the ones who fall in the middle? Why do they hunt? Do they enjoy it? Do they like to get thier guns and bows and go out and stalk things and shott them and make them die? And if they don’t like it, why do they do it? What are you trying to say, here?

Wolves don’t eat kids, and it would be less expensive and less trouble all around to let nature take care of itself, and lose the few sheep along the way.

And your uncivilized remarks didn’t offend me at all. I’m never offended by anything I read in debate forums. It’s just that remarks like the one you made are very poor form, and don’t really bolster your arguments. It’s a lot more rewarding to debate on point.

Stoidela

58

A few glaring typos above, sorry. My fingers are fumbling, it’s late in a long day.

59

Monty,
Did I advocate that any woman take her life rather than be raped? I’m sorry if that is the impression I gave. Being raped is not a sin (duh), it is just simply something I would rather not go though again. If that makes me a coward, so be it. I was not put on this earth for my decisions to be liked by everyone. It is a choice. And since I am not Christian, it is NOT a sin for me.

PR

60

What makes you assume that all hunters kill animals for sport?

I hunt. I will freely admit that I enjoy it, but I don’t consider it a sport any more than wearing roller blades to the grocery store is a sport.

Hunting allows you contact with the animals you eat. It means that nobody else is doing your dirty work for you. If you’ve ever gutted and cleaned an animal, you’d know that it’s not all fun and games. Hunting means you have to take responsibility for the life that you are consuming to preserve your own. Hunting means accepting what it is to be omnivorous; it means that you understand that animals suffer, that they are pursued and killed and eaten and that YES you are a part of this.

I know that some people do hunt for sport. Killing animals for the sake of killing IS wrong - I couldn’t agree with you more on that score. However, making a blanket assumption about the motives of every human who goes into the woods with a gun is also wrong.

What I really can’t stand is the hypocracy of those who live in cities, who barely acknowledge that there is a natural world, much less participate in it, and consume meat that is raised contrary to every natural rule in existence, then have the gall to condemn me for taking responsibility for my food, claiming that it’s cruel or harmful or mean to the poor little animals.

Somehow the notion of “stewardship” misses these people completely.

If you’re not a vegetarian, you have no right to criticize those who hunt for food. If you want to think about it a little more, and limit your criticisms to the “sport hunters” who actually deserve it, then I’ll help.

(Oh, and Prairie Rose - I’ll take you up on that venison steak offer :))