Should We Outlaw Hunting?

[WDRacing]

For the record, I only made this thread to drum up some debate about something that didn't involve Obama or the economy. I new it would be a hot topic, especially if I mentioned any type of weapons ban or requirements. Every single post I made was simply to poke you guys in the eye I was actually talking about hunting with a couple friends I work with and decided to make a thread about banning it, since it's hunting season and all.

I'm a card carrying NRA member, have been since 94. I was in the local gun shop a few years back when the ban was lifted so I could legally buy as many high capacity mags as they sold for my gun, Browing High Power.

I would sooner castrate myself then change the Constitution or prevent anyone from owning a weapon. When I cut myself shaving, I bleed red/white/blue just like every real American should. I do however think there should be some type of training that people can recieve for free, or else people simply won't bother. The only way I can see making it free is to use tax dollars to do it. That was the only part even remotely close to my actual opinion in this thread. Everything else was just me starting crap

So you can stop hating me I'm not "one of those"

WD

[Urabus GodofTraction]

For the record, I only made this thread to drum up some debate about something that didn't involve Obama or the economy. I new it would be a hot topic, especially if I mentioned any type of weapons ban or requirements. Every single post I made was simply to poke you guys in the eye I was actually talking about hunting with a couple friends I work with and decided to make a thread about banning it, since it's hunting season and all.

I'm a card carrying NRA member, have been since 94. I was in the local gun shop a few years back when the ban was lifted so I could legally buy as many high capacity mags as they sold for my gun, Browing High Power.

I would sooner castrate myself then change the Constitution or prevent anyone from owning a weapon. When I cut myself shaving, I bleed red/white/blue just like every real American should. I do however think there should be some type of training that people can recieve for free, or else people simply won't bother. The only way I can see making it free is to use tax dollars to do it. That was the only part even remotely close to my actual opinion in this thread. Everything else was just me starting crap

So you can stop hating me I'm not "one of those"

WD

I suspected as much. Had this been an in-person debate, you'd have noticed an amused lilt to my argument. I mean, who the hell makes a valid argument with a puppet named "Mr. Constitution"?

[480sx]

Lol i figured at first, but you had me wondering in the middle.

[bobotech]

As a gun owner, this thread has me LOLing.

[HashiriyaS14]

The right to bear arms, as it is phrased in the Bill of Rights, does NOT guarantee immunity from required testing, licensing, registration, et cetera. This is not up for debate, it's how the law is written and interpreted. Anyone who disagrees is either obstinate or ignorant.

If it is shown that uninformed firearms owners are a threat, generally, to themselves and others, then legislation may be enacted to protect themselves and others, i.e. mandatory training. Just like legislation in regards to uninformed and untrained drivers being a threat to themselves and others. Firearms ownership IS a right and vehicle operation IS a privilege, but it is not the ownership/operation that is being legislated, it's the credentials required to do either one without endangering other citizens. It's a separate legal question. I assure you that the added cost to the gun owner of licensing and training in regards to firearms will NEVER be found as contrary to the 2nd Amendment. The 2nd Amendment does not read "right to bear arms without any additional expense beyond firearm and ammunition purchase".

The right to own a firearm IS guaranteed by the constitution, but (expressly, letter-of-the-law), the right to own one without training is NOT guaranteed. If it's not written in the clause, it ain't guaranteed, sorry folks.

I'm not necessarily advocating one way or another, I'm just saying what battles you'll win and what battles you'll lose. Anyone trying to state that the 2nd Amendment guarantees freedom from mandatory training and registration is fighting a constitutional law battle that they aren't going to win.

Back to your regularly scheduled bickering.

[dusred]

Brian, you're an *******. LOL!

At first I figured you were being a troll but then it started sounding like you were serious. Dam. you had me.

[480sx]

The right to bear arms, as it is phrased in the Bill of Rights, does NOT guarantee immunity from required testing, licensing, registration, et cetera. This is not up for debate, it's how the law is written and interpreted. Anyone who disagrees is either obstinate or ignorant.

Sounds like you should have been an attorney general under bush or something.

"The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

Pretty clear cut hash.

[ADDirishboy]

This entire thread has me

[HashiriyaS14]

Sounds like you should have been an attorney general under bush or something.

"The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

Pretty clear cut hash.

You're not thinking like a judge or a lawyer. Nothing is clear cut, everything depends on the precise wording of the law in question and past interpretations thereof.

The only thing that shall not be infringed upon is the "right to keep and bear", which essentially means the "right to own and use".

Requiring registration, licensing, trigger locks, handstands, or blowjobs doesn't infringe upon the right to own or use. The Amendment guarantees ONLY that you can keep and bear, not that you can keep and bear without any other restrictions.

ONLY a contrary law on the federal or state level saying that "you can't own a gun" or "you can't use a gun" would count as "infringing". Making people jump through hoops to do those things does NOT infringe, you just can't actually OUTLAW them.

I've seriously explained this in this section like five times, I'm not sure why I'm doing it again. This is not my opinion, this is how the law is worded and it is not subject to debate. If the law doesn't expressly guarantee something in it's wording, then that thing is not guaranteed.

[ADDirishboy]

You're not thinking like a judge or a lawyer. Nothing is clear cut, everything depends on the precise wording of the law in question and past interpretations thereof.

And that, right there, is what is wrong with the judicial system.

[Urabus GodofTraction]

The right to bear arms, as it is phrased in the Bill of Rights, does NOT guarantee immunity from required testing, licensing, registration, et cetera. This is not up for debate, it's how the law is written and interpreted. Anyone who disagrees is either obstinate or ignorant.

If it is shown that uninformed firearms owners are a threat, generally, to themselves and others, then legislation may be enacted to protect themselves and others, i.e. mandatory training. Just like legislation in regards to uninformed and untrained drivers being a threat to themselves and others. Firearms ownership IS a right and vehicle operation IS a privilege, but it is not the ownership/operation that is being legislated, it's the credentials required to do either one without endangering other citizens. It's a separate legal question. I assure you that the added cost to the gun owner of licensing and training in regards to firearms will NEVER be found as contrary to the 2nd Amendment. The 2nd Amendment does not read "right to bear arms without any additional expense beyond firearm and ammunition purchase".

The right to own a firearm IS guaranteed by the constitution, but (expressly, letter-of-the-law), the right to own one without training is NOT guaranteed. If it's not written in the clause, it ain't guaranteed, sorry folks.

I'm not necessarily advocating one way or another, I'm just saying what battles you'll win and what battles you'll lose. Anyone trying to state that the 2nd Amendment guarantees freedom from mandatory training and registration is fighting a constitutional law battle that they aren't going to win.

Back to your regularly scheduled bickering.

HEY HEY! We've got a thread for that! If memory serves, you got all huffy but then bailed when I explained myself!

And you're way, way wrong. I'll go back to it again and again, but if we read everything with the approach you're taking, a poll tax would be completely acceptable.

[themadscientist]

You'll shoot your eye out kid.

[szh]

I think that we should, unless you're hunting for a food source, not just out to kill animals. Sport hunting is barbaric at best and needs to be stopped.

Of course, sometimes the wild life fights back: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28005680/.

Z

[HashiriyaS14]

And you're way, way wrong. I'll go back to it again and again, but if we read everything with the approach you're taking, a poll tax would be completely acceptable.

No, you're still way, way wrong.

Your poll tax example was irrelevant and remains irrelevant.

Fees are not taxes. Fees have purposes beyond just revenue generation.

A mandatory instruction class with a fee is incomparable to a simple tax. Even if the service is mandatory, a service is still being provided.

A mandatory instruction class and registration are NOT "taxes on gun ownership", they are NOT the same thing because the intent is neither to generate revenue nor to discourage gun ownership. The intent is to educate gun owners about how to operate their deadly weapons and also to ensure that nutcases can't buy guns.

You may feel that they would be arbitrary and tax-like because you're already educated on firearm operation and you're not a nutcase (maybe), but it's a societal trade-off. Inconvenicing you ever so slightly is worth keeping people from accidentally shooting their faces off. Sorry.

A SINGLE uneducated firearm owner, especially in states that allow carry, is unacceptable. All it takes is ONE idiot carrying a single-action semiauto handgun hammer-back on a subway train with the safety off to accidentally blow some 5-year old's brains out when he crosses his legs or whatever. Requiring an exam for every single gun owner in America is made worth it by preventing that ONE incident. Yes. Yes it is.

By all means, own guns, use guns, enjoy guns. I certainly do, but they're deadly f**king weapons and there are going to have to be some hoops to jump through to ensure that morons don't do moronic things with them. It's either this or take them out of circulation entirely, which I certainly don't want. Gun owners need to learn to compromise and not come off sounding like extremists. What the lowest common demonimator of gun owner does is YOUR problem too, it will ultimately effect you because you will be judged on their behavior. Public perception matters.

Your poll tax example is preposterous. Don't use it again.

Thanks for playing though.

[480sx]

You're not thinking like a judge or a lawyer. Nothing is clear cut, everything depends on the precise wording of the law in question and past interpretations thereof.

The only thing that shall not be infringed upon is the "right to keep and bear", which essentially means the "right to own and use"

Your not thinking like the framers. OE was a much different language than the english of today. A simple statement back then was clear enough to make their law concrete, and this is not so anymore.

By current day definition, your completely right however. Iv looked at the definitions of the words used in a few different locations and gotten pretty technical with the 2nd amendment.

The big shift since the days of the framers is the overly litigious society we live in. Its just a fact, there are some crafty som bish people who seem to be able to weasel their way out of any law, contract, ect ect. This is problematic for the constitution, a document that literally was written in a different language than that of todays.

We really need to go over and rewrite a lot of the constitution IMO. The document is far to important to not be updated. So much has changed since it was written, however many of the principals and core ideas are still ideal for government. It needs to be written in a way that demands respect and adherence from everyone, in a way where there are no loop holes, exceptions, or misunderstandings.

[Urabus GodofTraction]

No, you're still way, way wrong.

Your poll tax example was irrelevant and remains irrelevant.

Fees are not taxes. Fees have purposes beyond just revenue generation.

A mandatory instruction class with a fee is incomparable to a simple tax. Even if the service is mandatory, a service is still being provided.

A mandatory instruction class and registration are NOT "taxes on gun ownership", they are NOT the same thing because the intent is neither to generate revenue nor to discourage gun ownership. The intent is to educate gun owners about how to operate their deadly weapons and also to ensure that nutcases can't buy guns.

You may feel that they would be arbitrary and tax-like because you're already educated on firearm operation and you're not a nutcase (maybe), but it's a societal trade-off. Inconvenicing you ever so slightly is worth keeping people from accidentally shooting their faces off. Sorry.

A SINGLE uneducated firearm owner, especially in states that allow carry, is unacceptable. All it takes is ONE idiot carrying a single-action semiauto handgun hammer-back on a subway train with the safety off to accidentally blow some 5-year old's brains out when he crosses his legs or whatever. Requiring an exam for every single gun owner in America is made worth it by preventing that ONE incident. Yes. Yes it is.

By all means, own guns, use guns, enjoy guns. I certainly do, but they're deadly f**king weapons and there are going to have to be some hoops to jump through to ensure that morons don't do moronic things with them. It's either this or take them out of circulation entirely, which I certainly don't want. Gun owners need to learn to compromise and not come off sounding like extremists. What the lowest common demonimator of gun owner does is YOUR problem too, it will ultimately effect you because you will be judged on their behavior. Public perception matters.

Your poll tax example is preposterous. Don't use it again.

Thanks for playing though.

The poll tax was never used for revenue generation. It's use was to control who had access to the foundation of democracy: voting. Don't like the idea of money exchanging hands? Alright, a literacy exam to vote. It was done. It was also used to limit access to voting to only a select few. It's now shunned because of what it attempted to do.

Even then, intent doesn't matter. What's that saying, something about a road to hell?

Sorry, I don't buy your safety argument, either. Let's for a minute ignore Vermont's lack of MASSIVE numbers accidental firearm deaths (as Vermont requires no permit for concealed or open carry), and talk about concealed carry:It's annoying. When I'm carrying at 3'oclock, I can't lift my right arm above my head for fear of brandishing. I can't bend over for fear of brandishing. I can't visit certain places. Point: carrying isn't for everyone. Hell, a few people I know with a CCP got it because they want to keep a pistol easily accessible in their car. Bigger point: your wonderful picture of Bubba on the subway really doesn't happen. Those that carry more often than not continue their education far beyond what the law requires.Speaking of what the law requires, it's a joke. The CCP class? Pretty much a "this is a pistol" kinda thing. Lowest common denominator, "let's go out and fire the gun once and oh you kinda hit the paper so you're ok" kinda class. I'd put it barely above walking into a gun store and buying a handgun. If the training is that non-existent, where's the shot to hell 5-year olds?

Your whole scenario plays out like a bad movie. It's got all the buzzwords, too. Cocked single-action timebomb (cocked is the way most people CARRY a single action [most people carry double-action-single-action handguns cocked too.]). Check. Semi-auto (because, you know, revolvers are safer...). Check. Safety off (because a safety is so effective. Never mind neither of my carries HAS a safety...). Check. Accidental discharge due to an every day action (sorry, if your gun goes off because you cross your legs, you've got a negligent discharge on your hands and then you're potentially a criminal). Check. Young, innocent kid. Check.

Accidental deaths are in no way a reason to limit a basic right.

There is very little room to compromise on the issue. In fact, I think one of the few has got to be background checks. Allowable. Any wait incurred for an efficient and accurate check? Allowable. Arbitrary waiting periods? Give me a break. Extremists bring change. Those waiting around for compromises get elected to Congress.

We really need to go over and rewrite a lot of the constitution IMO. The document is far to important to not be updated. So much has changed since it was written, however many of the principals and core ideas are still ideal for government. It needs to be written in a way that demands respect and adherence from everyone, in a way where there are no loop holes, exceptions, or misunderstandings.

For better or for worse, the Supreme Court is the solution to that problem, not a rewritten constitution. Judicial review is another piece of Britain that the Founding Fathers agreed with.

[themadscientist]

We really need to go over and rewrite a lot of the constitution IMO. The document is far to important to not be updated. So much has changed since it was written, however many of the principals and core ideas are still ideal for government. It needs to be written in a way that demands respect and adherence from everyone, in a way where there are no loop holes, exceptions, or misunderstandings.

Yes, if only there was a mechanism that would allow the document to be changed. Something difficult to do to prevent knee-jerk political will from affecting it but receptive to efforts with large support for its, what would be a good word? Ah yes if only the constitution could be "ammended". Oh well, we all know no such system exists so I guess we are just stuck with it right?

[Armelius]

Sport hunting is barbaric? Who told you that? Cats hunt and kill just to show you that your place is being over run by mice. They tear through the feathers of birds just to show you that it's fun.

People fish and that is a form of hunting.

Some people even waste their whole day catching and releasing the same fish and they call it fun or a leisure activity.

If a criminal gets loose and obtains a gun you or deputized citizens go hunt him down. And you better take something better than a baseball bat.

[480sx]

Yes, if only there was a mechanism that would allow the document to be changed. Something difficult to do to prevent knee-jerk political will from affecting it but receptive to efforts with large support for its, what would be a good word? Ah yes if only the constitution could be "ammended". Oh well, we all know no such system exists so I guess we are just stuck with it right?

Thanks for enlightening me. I had to cut through your swaths of sarcasm to be able to learn anything but i walked away a much more informed citizen.

Q - How many times has the consitution been ammended?

Not very often.

The Constitution of the United States, originally ratified in 1789, has been amended only 27 times, with the first 10 amendments, known as the Bill of Rights, enacted all at once in 1791. The 18th amendment, relating to Prohibition, was repealed by the 21st, so there have really only been 16 changes to the Constitution since the Bill of Rights.

The most recent amendment, the 27th, relating to congressional compensation, was enacted in 1992. The one prior to that, the 26th, giving 18 year olds the right to vote, was enacted in 1971.

The bill of rights itself has been barely touched since it was written. The motovation is not there to keep the document up to speed with current day english. This is problematic, as was the point of my post, that you overlooked.

How about, "Mass amended".

[HashiriyaS14]

(sorry, if your gun goes off because you cross your legs, you've got a negligent discharge on your hands and then you're potentially a criminal).

Correction:

If your gun goes off because you cross your legs, you ARE a criminal (and you deserve to be one).

See: Plaxico Burress

I'm also very biased. I am PRO carry, but I generally think that anyone carrying a weapon needs to have serious training and generally be every bit as proficient with the weapon as a law enforcement officer would be.

Naturally, I know that plenty of people are, or even more so. Plenty of others however, are not.

If someone is carrying cocked and they have an accidental discharge that kills someone, as far as I'm concerned, they may as well have just taken out the gun and shot the person in the face. Negligence IS intent.

I see no reason for people to carry cocked and ready for some quick-draw situation. You're not a f**king cop. If you're in a quick-draw situation you're probably going to die. Try and avoid those situations. CC is not an excuse to go into situations that you wouldn't go into if you didn't have a weapon.

I'm all for licensed OPEN carry. I think the world would be a much safer place if 50% of people or more walked around with weapons out in the open, provided they were all properly instructed.

All just my opinion, of course.

[Urabus GodofTraction]

Correction:

If your gun goes off because you cross your legs, you ARE a criminal (and you deserve to be one).

See: Plaxico Burress

Accident: Cross your legs, faulty metallurgy causes the hammer sear to snap, round fires. Not a criminal.That's really, really rare. Like I said, a negligent discharge would make you a criminal.

I see no reason for people to carry cocked and ready for some quick-draw situation. You're not a f**king cop. If you're in a quick-draw situation you're probably going to die. Try and avoid those situations. CC is not an excuse to go into situations that you wouldn't go into if you didn't have a weapon.

While it's possible to practice an "Israeli" draw where you pull back the slide in a smooth motion during the draw, the time it takes you to c*** a handgun and bring it to bear is precious. If I'm probably going to die, I'll take every drop of time I can. No comment on idiots who use CC as an excuse to go stupid places (which isn't really relevant to the cocked vs. not argument).

Plus, the idea that a cocked weapon is more dangerous is generally rubbish. Most modern pistols that have a hammer have a hammer block that only allows the hammer to impact the firing pin when the trigger is pulled. The most commonly carried SAO pistol is the 1911, which doesn't. However, some light reading.

I'm all for licensed OPEN carry. I think the world would be a much safer place if 50% of people or more walked around with weapons out in the open, provided they were all properly instructed.

All just my opinion, of course.

Real problem with open carry: REALLY easy to see who's not packing and target them. A while back, some hooded youths in Florida were robbing tourists from other countries. Why? Guaranteed they weren't carrying concealed.

Don't bring that opinion (and vote), around these parts, ya hear?

[smockers83]

No, you're still way, way wrong.

Your poll tax example was irrelevant and remains irrelevant.

Fees are not taxes. Fees have purposes beyond just revenue generation.

A mandatory instruction class with a fee is incomparable to a simple tax. Even if the service is mandatory, a service is still being provided.

A mandatory instruction class and registration are NOT "taxes on gun ownership", they are NOT the same thing because the intent is neither to generate revenue nor to discourage gun ownership. The intent is to educate gun owners about how to operate their deadly weapons and also to ensure that nutcases can't buy guns.

Your poll tax example is preposterous. Don't use it again.

The hidden goals of public policy.

I don't know if I would have made the comparison to a poll tax, but a fee with mandatory classes is a tax on the system. A tax is not there solely to generate revenue. A tax is there to generate revenue in order for the government to sustain itself and provide the public goods and services its people need/want.

A fee would price certain people out of the gun market. This could be done in order to discourage gun ownership for poorer people in inner cities where gun crime rates are highest. The fee is a revenue producer just as much as a tax or mileage is. Most likely, the fee wouldn't cover the complete cost of the class and tax revenue would be used to cover it as well. The DNR doesn't generate all its revenue through its various hunting and fishing licenses, it is given a budget from tax revenue as well.

If you own a gun, you pay the fee. You don't have to own the gun. If you buy something with a sales tax, you pay the sales tax. You don't have to buy anything. If you own stock or a company, you may have to pay capital gains taxes, but you don't have to own stock or a company. If you want to own a car, you pay a registration fee. Can't afford the registration fee, can't afford the car.

Its not as preposterous as you may think.

[SullivanRacing06]

hmm ,weve got the rite to bare arms, i own 13 guns my self and im super pissed the new "n" president elect is gonna try n outlaw the sales of assult rifles, thats retarted, thats what makes america america, we have the largest mititia in the world, we have a ration of guns to americans 1.4 guns to 1 american, id like to keep my guns if yall dont mind, sport hunting isnt rite but i dont think stopping the sales of guns will stop people from poppin squirrels

[Urabus GodofTraction]

hmm ,weve got the rite to bare arms, i own 13 guns my self and im super pissed the new "n" president elect is gonna try n outlaw the sales of assult rifles, thats retarted, thats what makes america america, we have the largest mititia in the world, we have a ration of guns to americans 1.4 guns to 1 american, id like to keep my guns if yall dont mind, sport hunting isnt rite but i dont think stopping the sales of guns will stop people from poppin squirrels

You're stealing my oxygen.

[SullivanRacing06]

lol and hows that? by shooting?

[Urabus GodofTraction]

lol and hows that? by shooting?

No, by generally being an ignorant bigot. I doubt you actually shoot enough to take up much oxygen at all.

YOU are the reason Hash's argument makes any sense at all.

Also, you never got around to explaining how you carry that "9mm" around legally...

[SullivanRacing06]

in florida you dont have to be 21 to own a hand gun, i leave it unloaded in my glove box in a zipper case when im in my car on go out of county were i dont feel comf not having it on me, ive completed 3 out of the 10 hrs for my conc permit as well, sorry i dont see any bad arguments here,

[SullivanRacing06]

also i shoot 3-6 times a week, my dad owns property where i can shoot legally

[Urabus GodofTraction]

in fla you cant have a knife from tip to end of handle cant be bigger then your palm of ur hand, so i compensate by leavign the blade at home n carry my 9x19mm on the waist

waiting for someone to rob tohe store im in, ill shoot the mother fuc@er with my +P+ hollow so quick

You still haven't explained how you claim to carry while underage.

[SullivanRacing06]

and if im in my shop or on the property the shops on late at night i have it on me, its not illegal to have a hidden weapon on you if you ron your on property.

if someone is in a building you own and you feel your scared for your life you can protect yourself, when im in public i dont "usually" dont have it on me, if i go into cedar ridge or majestic oaks to visit friends ill have it on me every time