Should We Outlaw Hunting?

[S13_love]

Umm, how about no and that doesn't make any sense. You do realize that when you apply for hunting licenses you get tags, in which you pay for those separately, so at $1200/tag, hunting becomes only an elite person's activity. You do that and you destroy the rural economies. You do that and whitetails everywhere will become over populated. Strict rules are established for hunting, at least here in MI, you can't just go out and shoot at anything you see. This year, the MI DNR is trying to age the buck heard, so you can only shoot certain bucks. Some areas sell out within 15 minutes of when they go on sale, some areas have a lottery system. Its not like what you think it is.

Plus, going along with your original argument, how many crimes are committed with a rifle anyway? Not to many as most gun crimes occur with a hand gun.

^ 100% true

Out here, how the lottery system works is that its only for certain animals like moose, big horn sheep, and a couple of other ones i cant think of right now...but they only give away a small number of them and not everyone that gets one actually gets the animal

$1200 a tag would be the death of hunting...so no, it wont happen

[OriginalWheelman]

We have a lot of hunters around me. Even the ones who hunt "just for sport" donate all the meat to the food bank, so they are getting eaten in the long run. They're basicly just hunting for someone else. Furthermore, they tried to cut back hunting in the north towns, which is largely suburban (it was mostly woods 20 years ago) and the deer populations started overpopulating and a few of the towns actually had to not only allow hunting again. but BRING HUNTERS IN from other towns to stop the deer from wandering into town and eating people's gardens etc...

Hunting puts us in touch with nature and with our food, and I think it'd be an awful shame to get rid of it.

[HashiriyaS14]

Outlawing hunting would be along the same lines as the current regulations barring independent farms from slaughtering and directly selling their own meat animals.

The USDA likes corporate farming and industrialized food because it's easier to quantify and regulate. "Small food" scares them, and it's a damned shame.

We need fewer regulations telling us what we can and can't eat and who we can and can't buy out food from. This includes our ability to go out and procure our food for ourselves, be it via hunting, fishing, foraging for mushrooms or fruit, farming on our own property, etc.

Keep the government out of my dining room!

[weird240]

you can take my freedom, you can take my house, but the only way u will get my gun is by pring it out of my cold dead hands!

[Combat Squirrel]

Unfortunately, far too many unqualified untrained people have that idea. Perhaps if you really understood what a weapon was for and offered it the respect it deserved you wouldn't have to worry about losing your precious 2nd amendment right. Don't take this personal as I don't even know you but I do know that 95% of the people who own guns have no real training and constitute more of a danger than an asset to our country.

[WDRacing]

Agreed, which is why we need to make sure these Hunters can pass Federal firearm testing to even purchase a rifle. If you have one already, in order to get a license to hunt you need to take the test every year, on top of paying for the license.

It's the same with old people driving, take the test to get behind the scope.

[Combat Squirrel]

Absolutely my friend. There is nothing wrong with too much training and a little more appreciation for what a weapon can do. Far too many unqualified people feel the need to own a firearm as a means of defense. In fact ownership should be the last avenue of defense, not the first.

[480sx]

Don't take this personal as I don't even know you but I do know that 95% of the people who own guns have no real training and constitute more of a danger than an asset to our country.

How is this category of '95% untrained American holders' a danger to America? People who use guns for illicit acts are going to get guns regardless of what rules there are. Theres nothing anyone is going to do to stop that in our time.

Your also way off based to say that 95 percent of America has no training. Very few idiots just give a gun to their kid and say here ya go bucko, you shoot at this target. While they might not have had anything close to the training that a scout/sniper has, they have training none the less.

Not having the right amount of respect for what a weapon can do? As long as you know a weapon can kill, which uh.. at least 95 percent of the population has, you have respect for guns.

A gun for some people is the best mode of defense in most situations that warrant a defense. There is no better way to fight a robber, or someone with a weapon be it gun or otherwise than with a gun. There is no better tool to fight off a home invasion than a gun. This is partially what the 2nd amendment was about.

I know i personally have been trained by my grandpa, my dad, and two uncles since i was about 8 years old. Iv been around guns for that long. Shot skeet, targets, NRA range silhouettes, am a member of the Fairfax rod and gun club, shot an AR-15, Lugers, 45's, 22-250(My personal favorite), under overs, along with a long list of pistols and random rifles.

To say that 95 percent of America has NO training and NO respect for what a gun can do isnt even remotely accurate.

[WDRacing]

You're just letting your biased views get in the way of real discussion.

[480sx]

You're just letting your biased views get in the way of real discussion.

The real discussion two people were having from the same view point?

Everyone is biased WD. Dont commit fallacies by dismissing things that i say because you think im 'biased'. If you want to have a real discussion attack the points i have made.

[Combat Squirrel]

Again, I don't know you so this isn't meant to be personal. However, there is that "we need guns to protect our self" comment once more thrown out as a justification for owning a weapon. I'd suggest that engaging in a little planning and forethought will preclude the need for a weapon 99 % of the time.

I'm probably more familiar with firearms than 99.9 % of the civilians in this country, yet my weapon of choice for home defense is a baseball bat.

I have no problem with civilians owning weapons. However, this "for protection" reason doesn't always hold water.

I agree with the other person who stated more training and re-training is the best idea.

[480sx]

Hah i find it pretty sweet that you have the skills and training you do but dont own a gun for home protection. BA

I agree with you that most of the time, most peoples decision to own a gun based the need for self defense is made on shaky grounds. Very few people need a gun for self defense but at the same time they are entitled to that right by our country, for any reason.

However, in many situations where defense is needed, Gun>All. O/C the wielder is the primary weapon, and his thought process determines if he will successfully defend himself or not. In reality the 'Best(subjective really)' type of defense would be a calm rational strategic thought process along with combat training. But again, its all about the situation at hand.

Im all for a basic test or training to be able to hold a weapon period. Something that however costs a lot(extensive training, whatever) would make it so gun ownership or the ability to purchase a gun would exclude the poor.

I didnt take anything personally, i just didnt like the percentage you tossed out there of 95 percent.

[WDRacing]

You're a fallacy!!!!!

[Combat Squirrel]

You're assuming a lot there guy. I never said I didn't own a weapon. I merely said I don't choose a firearm as my primary defense.

If someone is so paranoid about a home invasion then I'd suggest they arm themselves with a cell phone, quality dead bolts on their doors, a baseball bat and a well lit environment.

Firing a weapon at another human being isn't as easy as some might think. If a person doesn't understand that, perhaps they shouldn't own a firearm in the first place. God forbid the "home invader" turns out to be the paper boy collecting for the month.

[Urabus GodofTraction]

It's the same with old people driving, take the test to get behind the scope.

Hey look kids, it's our friend Mr. Constitution! Mr. Constitution, what do you say about people driving?...Mr. Constitution?...

Oh, wait, that's right, the Constitution doesn't say anything about driving!

I'll break it down Barney style, because if I see the comparison made one more time, I'm going postal.

You cannot compare the right to bare arms with the privilege of driving on government-owned roads.

I agree with the other person who stated more training and re-training is the best idea.

Great, and let's make it so that everyone is require to get training on how to speak and write English before they're allowed to voice an opinion! Those pesky rights!

You're assuming a lot there guy. I never said I didn't own a weapon. I merely said I don't choose a firearm as my primary defense.

If someone is so paranoid about a home invasion then I'd suggest they arm themselves with a cell phone, quality dead bolts on their doors, a baseball bat and a well lit environment.

Firing a weapon at another human being isn't as easy as some might think. If a person doesn't understand that, perhaps they shouldn't own a firearm in the first place. God forbid the "home invader" turns out to be the paper boy collecting for the month.

I don't know your situation (apartment, close neighbors, maybe?), so I'm sure you've got a good reason for relying on a baseball bat for protection.

You've displayed a dangerous naivety, though. Paranoia? Paranoia is a medical condition, and one of those underhanded terms to cast doubt on someone who takes "above average" measure to protect himself. Being prepared is just sensible. Cell phone? Yes, that's a good thing to rely on for home defense! The only cops that show up when you need them in a home invasion are the Minority Report ones...

I'll agree that it's simply unwise for some people to own a weapon. However;"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Firearm deaths and accidents are not sound logic for the curtailing of a right.

That said, this thread is about hunting. Hash tends to lose some composure over "gun threads" and I'd rather not witness said composure being lost.
Modified by charlieo at 12:49 AM 11/28/2008

[480sx]

You're a fallacy!!!!!

I lold for a while, +1 brian. I got pwned.

You're assuming a lot there guy. I never said I didn't own a weapon. I merely said I don't choose a firearm as my primary defense.

Yea i guess its kind of stupid to assume that you wouldnt have a weapon, however thats the way you made it sound imo. That ones still on me. If i go into defense mode however, im going in with a gun if i have my choice in the matter. Theres a big difference between drawing a bead at someone you perceive might be a threat and pulling the trigger. In any situation, whatever the tool, the mind is the real weapon. So equip yourself with whatever tool has the highest success rate imo.

Charleo makes the point that i would have. Police can only be so quick. Someone can end your life or a loved ones in a heartbeat. There are some situations where you MUST be prepared to act on a moments notice, you cant just sit back and wait for someone to help you. Your not going after a robber thats got a gun with a baseball bat unless your real freaken crafty/lucky. Paranoia? Maybe, or call it being ready for any situation that could potentially happen. Im sure you (C.S) know something about that.

C - I dont think that its unreasonable to ask someone to demonstrate they have the basic understanding of guns, safeties, local carry laws, ect when they purchase one. However this is really a slippery slope to try to defend.

I mean yea, this thread is quickly diving into other areas other than hunting but its still staying civil.

[WDRacing]

Hey look kids, it's our friend Mr. Constitution! Mr. Constitution, what do you say about people driving?...Mr. Constitution?...

Oh, wait, that's right, the Constitution doesn't say anything about driving!

Wanna get sarcastic Charlie? Fine with me...I'm all about sarcasm, assuming you're not just being this way cause you didn't understand what I was trying to communicate. No need to belittle me because you're emotionally charged. Relax and take a breath homie.

The correlation between old people driving and weapons is VERY feasible and has ZERO to do with the Constitution. But perhaps I didn't make my point well.

Old people should have to take an annual test to insure they still posses the cognitive ability as well as reflexes to drive. Visual testing is simply not enough. My reference to guns is spot on when it comes to a requirement for people to take and pass a test to receive a license or even buy a gun.

This test doesn't have to be expensive. But there needs to be SOMETHING. Remember, I'm prior military, I've seen my share of idiots WITH training mishandle a weapon. So civilians need some sort of checks and balances system...IMO. Does that clear up my idea?

I'd give my tax dollars to fund training and testing. Atleast this way I know it's doing some good, not just assisting the bailout program and supporting the Socialist Gov we've recently installed.

WD

[Urabus GodofTraction]

Wanna get sarcastic Charlie? Fine with me...I'm all about sarcasm, assuming you're not just being this way cause you didn't understand what I was trying to communicate. No need to belittle me because you're emotionally charged. Relax and take a breath homie.

The correlation between old people driving and weapons is VERY feasible and has ZERO to do with the Constitution. But perhaps I didn't make my point well.

Old people should have to take an annual test to insure they still posses the cognitive ability as well as reflexes to drive. Visual testing is simply not enough. My reference to guns is spot on when it comes to a requirement for people to take and pass a test to receive a license or even buy a gun.

This test doesn't have to be expensive. But there needs to be SOMETHING. Remember, I'm prior military, I've seen my share of idiots WITH training mishandle a weapon. So civilians need some sort of checks and balances system...IMO. Does that clear up my idea?

I'd give my tax dollars to fund training and testing. Atleast this way I know it's doing some good, not just assisting the bailout program and supporting the Socialist Gov we've recently installed.

WD

My shrink let me back on my computer again:

You missed my point. It doesn't matter how great an idea a check and balance to owning a weapon is, it's not Constitutionally possible. I wouldn't let anyone that isn't familiar with a firearm handle on of mine, so I agree that training is a great idea. It's just not Constitutionally allowable.

You made a grievous and hot-button error comparing a license to drive with a requirement to own a weapon. They're nowhere near the same, as the government is under no obligation to allow you to drive. Right vs. Privilege. A closer analogy would be a test to be able to vote.

Have I made my point?

C - I dont think that its unreasonable to ask someone to demonstrate they have the basic understanding of guns, safeties, local carry laws, ect when they purchase one. However this is really a slippery slope to try to defend.

I mean yea, this thread is quickly diving into other areas other than hunting but its still staying civil.

Reasonability (is that a word) has nothing to do with it. It's reasonable to expect voters to be informed, but you can't require them to be.

[smockers83]

So we've moved from outlawing hunting to just requiring a test? Am I following this right?

[Urabus GodofTraction]

So we've moved from outlawing hunting to just requiring a test? Am I following this right?

Devolved rather rapidly, didn't it?

[WDRacing]

My shrink let me back on my computer again:

You missed my point. It doesn't matter how great an idea a check and balance to owning a weapon is, it's not Constitutionally possible.

Anything can be Amended, nothing is impossible. Times change, an old piece of paper isn't going be infallible forever.

So we've moved from outlawing hunting to just requiring a test? Am I following this right?

We're just having a discussion and as with most things, it has progressed. If you're going to hunt, then you should be required to take some type of weapons training. Even if you have the right to own a gun, you should still be required to prove you can use it.

[Urabus GodofTraction]

Anything can be Amended, nothing is impossible. Times change, an old piece of paper isn't going be infallible forever.

Dear god, you're one of those.

[480sx]

Reasonability (is that a word) has nothing to do with it. It's reasonable to expect voters to be informed, but you can't require them to be.

True enough, and yes it is a word(google surprised me on that one lol).

WD, the chances of removing the 2nd amendment from the constitution is so astronomically unlikely in our lifetime that you might as well say its never going to happen. You can join a knitting club who probably would share your beliefs.

[WDRacing]

Nate, Charlie...

I didn't say get rid of it. I'm pro Constitution, always have been. But I'm not so stubborn as to realize that it was written in a different era. We don't need to lose certain amendments, but they could use some changes...or rather additions.

Yes we all have the right to bear arms...yada yada. That's been debated to no end as of late. So I don't want to turn this into another ghey gun thread. My idea is to have weapons training added on as a requirement to own a gun and or obtain a hunting license. This training would be federally funded, so it wouldn't cost us any money and it would in fact generate a few thousand jobs. One friggin NASA rocket launch would fund that program for 2 years.

If you're against free weapons training JUST BECAUSE of the friggin Constitution...well then you've just become part of the problem, NOT the solution.

Times are changing and we need to change with them.

[Urabus GodofTraction]

This training would be federally funded, so it wouldn't cost us any money and it would in fact generate a few thousand jobs. One friggin NASA rocket launch would fund that program for 2 years.

If you're against free weapons training JUST BECAUSE of the friggin Constitution...well then you've just become part of the problem, NOT the solution.

And now we're using federal funding for it... Oh boy!

Let's not forget that mandating training would created a list of gun owners, and oh what a bad idea that is.

I'm not against free weapons training, I'm against required training.

[WDRacing]

Then you're anti safety and basically foolish. I can now lump YOU into one of "those"...

I'd rather my tax dollars went towards training people rather then given to GM...but whatever dude. Keep on keepin on with you're extremely narrow mindset. One day you'll realize that it isn't the 40's anymore and things are different now.

ZOMG we'd have a list with names of people that own guns...OH THE HORROR.

[dusred]

Then you're anti safety and basically foolish. I can now lump YOU into one of "those"...

I'd rather my tax dollars went towards training people rather then given to GM...but whatever dude. Keep on keepin on with you're extremely narrow mindset. One day you'll realize that it isn't the 40's anymore and things are different now.

ZOMG we'd have a list with names of people that own guns...OH THE HORROR.

Brian,

Did you listen in History class about why America was made? It was to get out from under the bull**** oppression of the other Government's. That oppression included a Gun ban. Everyone in the US should have the right to own a weapon (mind you unless they have a felony or are under 18). The Government would love to be our daddies and solve all our problems but not everyone wants to be ruled by a king. This is a free country.

I personally don't own a gun (I'm under 18), my parents aren't gun owners. . . in fact I don't even personally know anyone who owns a gun. I've never even shot one before but I do have other "pet peeves" and I if the Government can control who has guns and why they can just as easily take away the rest of the freedom's we enjoy. It's gun's one day and then your pet peeve the next. "As soon as guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns." -Some wise President of the US

My answer to the original post would be No, the Government has no right to outlaw hunting or to put restrictions on any guns.

/my Patriotism and Constitutional verbal lather

[Urabus GodofTraction]

Then you're anti safety and basically foolish. I can now lump YOU into one of "those"...

I'd rather my tax dollars went towards training people rather then given to GM...but whatever dude. Keep on keepin on with you're extremely narrow mindset. One day you'll realize that it isn't the 40's anymore and things are different now.

ZOMG we'd have a list with names of people that own guns...OH THE HORROR.

And now the mighty name of safety is brought into play. Please protect us, oh mighty government! Next, please can we have free but mandatory candidate familiarization classes before we're allowed to vote? It's foolish to allow the uninformed to vote!

Yeah, right. My view isn't narrow, it's exacting. I'd rather not have my tax dollars given to GM, either, so not sure where you're going there...

Hey, I've got an idea! Let's compile a giant list of all the Jews in the country. I mean, what's the worst that could happen then? OH THE HORROR!



(Godwin's Lawed!)

"As soon as guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns." -Some wise President of the US

If you're going to attribute that quote to some one, please get it right.

It's generally attributed to Edward Abbey, and the real quote is quite something:"If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military, the hired servants of our rulers. Only the government --and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws."

[dusred]

Bla. When I heard it it was on a history video of one of the more famous US presidents and those were his exact words. I believe it was JFK but I'm not 100% sure.

It doesn't really matter at any rate does it? The point is that outlawing/heavily regulating guns will only result in the law abiding being punished.

Oh, and about the "you are one of those" comment, Brian, you can lump me into the group of "one of those" who actually respect the Constitution, also. I don't really care.

[Urabus GodofTraction]

Bla. When I heard it it was on a history video of one of the more famous US presidents and those were his exact words. I believe it was JFK but I'm not 100% sure.

It doesn't really matter at any rate does it? The point is that outlawing/heavily regulating guns will only result in the law abiding being punished.

It's the little things that matter.