Our Gun Rights

[SmarterthanYou]

Yippee. Artificial means of balance and 'management' according to humans and their superior agenda. It'll all end badly, eventually.

You're certainly free to divest yourself of the civil elements of societal living like your home, extra clothes, a frig full of food, and running water so that you can start living out in the wild with all the other animals and predators.

 

[CanceledB]

Bijou, if you can think of another way to control the population, by all means step up and tell us.

You and I do not and will not see eye-to-eye on this; you're of the thinking that man should control everything. Man is the only species inhabiting this planet that is of no use to the planet itself nor the rest of its creatures. Every other species serves some purpose to one or more other species. Human beings serve only each other and themselves. Man's 'control' is what poisons this planet and destroys all the other life forms inhabiting it.

In Alabama the estimated whitetail deer population is 1.7 million animals. Wildlife biologists say that 1/3 of them need to be removed annually to maintain a stable, healthy herd. If you can think of a way to remove over half a million animals in this one state, tell us.

See above.

Yes the control is artificial. But given that there has not been a sufficient population of predators in my part of the world in 100 years, this artificial means of balance and management is our best option.

As stated previously, it will eventually end, and badly.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Bijou, if you can think of another way to control the population, by all means step up and tell us.

she can't do that. she needs someone wiser and smarter than her to solve the problems that result from her 'fixes'.

 

[CanceledB]

We have to do exactly the same thing in the UK with deer and foxes.

As does Australia with the kangaroos. All these animals become a 'nuisance' to humans, once they've decided they want the animals' habitats for their own.

 

[anatta]

Show me where the 2nd Amendment says anything about "subject to limitations?"

I was speaking about permits, and such. the staes cannot ban guns, but there are limitations. For ex. in Fla you can carry a gun to work, but must leave it locked in a car - or say going into buildings/sports recreaonals, you can't just carry them anywhere anytime, with no limitations.

Interestingly enough Scalia said this today about this topic:
http://www.examiner.com/article/scalia-stuns-identity-conservatives-says-guns-can-be-regulated
In a shocking statement made this morning on FOX News Sunday with Chris Wallace, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said he believes the U.S. Constitution allows states to regulate firearms. In a response to a question about the Second Amendment from Wallace, Scalia said the following:

... there were legal precedents from the days of the Founding Fathers that banned some weapons. There were also "locational limitations" on where weapons could be carried. --They had some limitations on the nature of arms that could be borne

This statement will be perceived as a bolt of lightning in conservative circles and it will be received as a breath of fresh air to those that seek common sense gun standards. If one of the most conservative people in the land, Antonin Scalia, believes the 2nd Amendment allows for gun limitations, it will be difficult for gun fundamentalists to continue to make their case that gun ownership is absolute and not subject to any control by government authorities.

 

[Canceled.2014.1]

You and I do not and will not see eye-to-eye on this; you're of the thinking that man should control everything. Man is the only species inhabiting this planet that is of no use to the planet itself nor the rest of its creatures. Every other species serves some purpose to one or more other species. Human beings serve only each other and themselves. Man's 'control' is what poisons this planet and destroys all the other life forms inhabiting it.

No, we DO agree that man has destroyed and continues to destroy. I am a conservationist and an environmentalist. But I am also a realist. You continue to blame man's destruction for the lack of predators. I am not arguing that at all. But at the same time you seem to be berating hunting as the best means for population control of whitetail deer.

I get that you hate hunting. I get that you blame man for the destruction of the environment. So do I. But the reality is that these artificial means of population control are the only feasible alternative to allowing a species to overpopulate and starve to death slowly, while destroying many other species as well.

We don't have to agree on whether hunting is sporting. But to act as though it serves no purpose is simply nonsense.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

You're certainly free to divest yourself of the civil elements of societal living like your home, extra clothes, a frig full of food, and running water so that you can start living out in the wild with all the other animals and predators.

LOL... Bijou gone feral?

 

[anatta]

I hunt for a variety of reasons. I hunt to thin a population of invasive animals. I hunt for the challenge of pitting me own skills against the instincts and skills of a wild animals. I hunt for the meat. I hunt for the camaraderie of the camp. Is there a thrill involved in the kill? Yes, but not because of the death of the animal. The thrill is because my skills have put there and I am able to make a clean shot.

I have had more days than I can count where I came back empty handed. But those days are still part of why I hunt.

good enough, i can understand the skill set and the mastery convey a satisfaction without the "thrill of the kill" itself.

I wasn't playing "gotcha games" it was an honest question, and you gave an honest answer. appreciate that

 

[CanceledB]

No, we DO agree that man has destroyed and continues to destroy. I am a conservationist and an environmentalist. But I am also a realist. You continue to blame man's destruction for the lack of predators. I am not arguing that at all. But at the same time you seem to be berating hunting as the best means for population control of whitetail deer.

While I'm not a proponent of human intereference in any fashion, there are other means more desirable than shooting and killing them, one of them being birth control, to control the numbers of deer.

I get that you hate hunting. I get that you blame man for the destruction of the environment. So do I. But the reality is that these artificial means of population control are the only feasible alternative to allowing a species to overpopulate and starve to death slowly, while destroying many other species as well.

See above. And regarding 'overpopulation', again - human beings can propagate with abandon and our numbers continue to climb unsustainably. Then we beat the devil and prolong our lifespans long past being of any use to the planet or anyone else. Sorry, but the only herd needing to be culled is homo sapiens. And before you go ballistic and insinuate I'm suggesting something drastic, rest assured I'm not, because it'll never happen anyway. Just as humans have to 'right' to overpopulate the planet, poison it and deplete it of its resources, and kill off other animals with their gun and hunting 'rights', humans have no say in the natural order which usually comes in the form of some devastating virus, plague, poisoned food supply (which we're presently doing with our own factory-farm practices) or some other catastrophe that knocks the numbers down to size.

We don't have to agree on whether hunting is sporting. But to act as though it serves no purpose is simply nonsense.

The only purpose it 'serves' is to enable man to continue being greedy about the finite space, and to continue to be destructive.

 

[anatta]

besides the fact that the framers considered this price worth the cost of freedom, eventually this would weed out all the angry nuts by either being shot to death during their fits of rage, or being locked up for life for murder. eventually, it would make a more peaceful socity.

so killing the "angry nuts" means no more angry nuts? I don't think so, there is a fascination with killing, i've seen it when I was young, and hung out with..bad ppl.
They were born bad, and stayed that way, until they wound up in jail, changed their mindset. or otherwise "eliminated."

Yet here we are again. It's impossible to rid the world of "varmits" of the human kind.

martial arts, while a good thing to know, is nothing like the movies. even an expert is not going to be able to handle 5 thugs intent on assaulting you, but guaranteed that you start emptying the magazine, they are going to scatter like the cockroaches that they are.

true enough, we're not all Bruce Lee, but when you "empty the magazine" you just might find someone else doing the same to you. Violence breeds violence.
Not in every case, but it's a maxim that holds water.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

I was speaking about permits, and such. the staes cannot ban guns, but there are limitations. For ex. in Fla you can carry a gun to work, but must leave it locked in a car - or say going into buildings/sports recreaonals, you can't just carry them anywhere anytime, with no limitations.

Interestingly enough Scalia said this today about this topic:
http://www.examiner.com/article/scalia-stuns-identity-conservatives-says-guns-can-be-regulated
In a shocking statement made this morning on FOX News Sunday with Chris Wallace, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said he believes the U.S. Constitution allows states to regulate firearms. In a response to a question about the Second Amendment from Wallace, Scalia said the following:

This statement will be perceived as a bolt of lightning in conservative circles and it will be received as a breath of fresh air to those that seek common sense gun standards. If one of the most conservative people in the land, Antonin Scalia, believes the 2nd Amendment allows for gun limitations, it will be difficult for gun fundamentalists to continue to make their case that gun ownership is absolute and not subject to any control by government authorities.

Last I checked, Antonin Scalia didn't write the 2nd Amendment. And you can 'speak about' permits and such, but I asked you where the 2nd Amendment says anything about "subject to limitations?" Now, I would tend to agree with Scalia, this is not something the federal government can do, but because states have an exclusive state authority which the federal government doesn't posses, they can regulate firearms. That doesn't mean they can ban gun ownership.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

I was speaking about permits, and such. the staes cannot ban guns, but there are limitations. For ex. in Fla you can carry a gun to work, but must leave it locked in a car - or say going into buildings/sports recreaonals, you can't just carry them anywhere anytime, with no limitations.

Interestingly enough Scalia said this today about this topic:
http://www.examiner.com/article/scalia-stuns-identity-conservatives-says-guns-can-be-regulated
In a shocking statement made this morning on FOX News Sunday with Chris Wallace, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said he believes the U.S. Constitution allows states to regulate firearms. In a response to a question about the Second Amendment from Wallace, Scalia said the following:


This statement will be perceived as a bolt of lightning in conservative circles and it will be received as a breath of fresh air to those that seek common sense gun standards. If one of the most conservative people in the land, Antonin Scalia, believes the 2nd Amendment allows for gun limitations, it will be difficult for gun fundamentalists to continue to make their case that gun ownership is absolute and not subject to any control by government authorities.

It's been long known that Scalias bullshit about being an originalist is just that....bullshit. all one has to do is read his concurring opinion in Gonzalez v. Raich to see that Scalia doesn't care about ruling by the constitution than any other justice on the bench.

 

[anatta]

Last I checked, Antonin Scalia didn't write the 2nd Amendment. And you can 'speak about' permits and such, but I asked you where the 2nd Amendment says anything about "subject to limitations?" Now, I would tend to agree with Scalia, this is not something the federal government can do, but because states have an exclusive state authority which the federal government doesn't posses, they can regulate firearms. That doesn't mean they can ban gun ownership.

Those were the limitations I meant(subject to limitations), you injected the 2nd Amendment -I never claimed the 2nd amendment limited ownership of firearms, if that is your point. SCOTUS has pretty much said the right to bear arms is an individual right, and cannot be infringed, but it can be regualated
(as in no machine guns, or AAA in your back yard to shoot down ducks). Perhaps I used the wrong word ( limitations ) i understand that word is anathema to those who cling to their absolute desire to own guns.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

so killing the "angry nuts" means no more angry nuts? I don't think so, there is a fascination with killing, i've seen it when I was young, and hung out with..bad ppl.
They were born bad, and stayed that way, until they wound up in jail, changed their mindset. or otherwise "eliminated."

Yet here we are again. It's impossible to rid the world of "varmits" of the human kind.

it's the way of the world. the only way for evil to reign supreme is for good men to do nothing. but if we good men do something, evil will still exist, just not so blatantly.

true enough, we're not all Bruce Lee, but when you "empty the magazine" you just might find someone else doing the same to you. Violence breeds violence.
Not in every case, but it's a maxim that holds water.

most thugs and criminals care a hell of a lot about their own skins. yes, occasionally you'll have the unfeeling animal that doesn't care whether he lives or dies, but again that is just the way of the world.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Last I checked, Antonin Scalia didn't write the 2nd Amendment. And you can 'speak about' permits and such, but I asked you where the 2nd Amendment says anything about "subject to limitations?" Now, I would tend to agree with Scalia, this is not something the federal government can do, but because states have an exclusive state authority which the federal government doesn't posses, they can regulate firearms. That doesn't mean they can ban gun ownership.

states that have a 'right to bear arms' amendment in their own constitutions do not have some magical exception that allows them to regulate arms.

 

[Canceled.2014.1]

While I'm not a proponent of human intereference in any fashion, there are other means more desirable than shooting and killing them, one of them being birth control, to control the numbers of deer.

Birth control for 1,000,000 deer in Alabama alone? Because we are talking about creating a stable population without removing them artificially, so we would have to treat far more than the 550,000 that biologists say should be removed. Currently, the revenue from licences to hunt in Alabama alone generate a bit over $6 million a year for the state conservation dept. Removing that plus adding in the cost of the contraceptive and the delivery of the contraceptive, would bankrupt the state. If the contraceptive and the delivery method could be kept to just $10 per animal, you would still have to spend $10 million on it, and that is assuming no waste whatsoever. Now the state is out $16 million, just in order to pacify your distaste for killing?

Also, given the number of health risks in human oral conrtraceptives, would you really want to give 1,000,000 deer such a strong medication, simply to avoid having them hunted? What would be the long term damages to the ecosystem to have 1,000,000 doses of birth control suddenly introduced? And it would spread throughout the ecosystem. The scavengers that eat the carcasses of those that die would receive a dose of deer birth control. What would be the long term effect of that?

 

[anatta]

It's been long known that Scalias bullshit about being an originalist is just that....bullshit. all one has to do is read his concurring opinion in Gonzalez v. Raich to see that Scalia doesn't care about ruling by the constitution than any other justice on the bench.

well. before the individual madate was thrown out - there were few limitations on the Commerce Clause. Gonzalez v Raich was an extension of Wickard v Filburn.
I value federalism too -i'm sure i've posted that before, it is the one political attachment i have, not partisian, but original intent.

We probably have common ground on that ( ASS U ME so), even as federalism went from "marblecake" to "dual" to "coperative" to "new federalism".
I'd gladly go back to an earlier version, new federalism is bullshit, it still involves the Fed's reaching into state law, and the block grants, are still an intertwining of monies; making it a distinction without a difference

 

[j-mac]

Those were the limitations I meant(subject to limitations), you injected the 2nd Amendment -I never claimed the 2nd amendment limited ownership of firearms, if that is your point. SCOTUS has pretty much said the right to bear arms is an individual right, and cannot be infringed, but it can be regualated
(as in no machine guns, or AAA in your back yard to shoot down ducks). Perhaps I used the wrong word ( limitations ) i understand that word is anathema to those who cling to their absolute desire to own guns.

Wow, all you need is to add "& Religion" and it would be Obama posting.

 

[CanceledB]

Birth control for 1,000,000 deer in Alabama alone? Because we are talking about creating a stable population without removing them artificially, so we would have to treat far more than the 550,000 that biologists say should be removed. Currently, the revenue from licences to hunt in Alabama alone generate a bit over $6 million a year for the state conservation dept. Removing that plus adding in the cost of the contraceptive and the delivery of the contraceptive, would bankrupt the state. If the contraceptive and the delivery method could be kept to just $10 per animal, you would still have to spend $10 million on it, and that is assuming no waste whatsoever. Now the state is out $16 million, just in order to pacify your distaste for killing?

Also, given the number of health risks in human oral conrtraceptives, would you really want to give 1,000,000 deer such a strong medication, simply to avoid having them hunted? What would be the long term damages to the ecosystem to have 1,000,000 doses of birth control suddenly introduced? And it would spread throughout the ecosystem. The scavengers that eat the carcasses of those that die would receive a dose of deer birth control. What would be the long term effect of that?

Everything boils down to dollars and cents and what benefits the human agenda. You're a hunter, a gun-rights proponent, and these two biases have a predictably significant sway with every 'solution' worthy of your consideration. I don't see that shooting them dead is the only solution to the man-made problems of habitat loss, lack of natural predators and urban development. From a purely objective point of view, curtailment of numerous human activities is in order, not more destruction of deer.


With all due respect, I have no wish to engage the discussion with narrow parameters such as your biases demand. You can continue to cite all the stats you want and I will never be convinced that we can and should 'kill' our way into a sustainable balance with nature. The suggestion of such is, frankly, despicable in its arrogance.

 

[anatta]

Wow, all you need is to add "& Religion" and it would be Obama posting.

much as i dislike Obama's propensity for war and consider his presidency a "c" at best; he was correct in that off the cuff remark. Americans do cling to their guns and religions.

Just a statement of fact. I'm not setting myself on a higher nobel plane, i cling to my religion too(Buddhist), even though is it fundamentally NOT about "clinging to attachments". an irony i have noted about myself.