Our Gun Rights

[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.

Another thought on this is the delivery means. If we simply put it out for consumption, we would have no way of controlling the doseage. Some deer would get too much, some not enough ect ect.

So the only way to do it, and be sure of the proper doseage would be thru injections via darts.

So lets say we hire people to shoot the deer with darts to deliver the contraceptive, and to mark them as having had it, since we won't want them double dosed.

Lets have each of these people make $15 an hour, work a 40 hr week, and not take vacation so they work 52 weeks a year. And if we allow that they will be able to dose and mark an average of 5 deer per day. In order to dose 1,000,000 deer every year, we would have to hire over 750 of these people. The salary alone would be $24 million per year. If, by buying in great volume, the contraceptive itself only costs $2 per dose, we would have cost the state over $32 million. And that does not include insurance benefits, workmans comp, fuel, or other travel costs.

 

[j-mac]

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.

OMG! You are freakin' hilarious!... I nominate you to follow deer around and place condom's on them....heh, heh....Good luck. Moron.

 

[CanceledB]

Another thought on this is the delivery means. If we simply put it out for consumption, we would have no way of controlling the doseage. Some deer would get too much, some not enough ect ect.

So the only way to do it, and be sure of the proper doseage would be thru injections via darts.

So lets say we hire people to shoot the deer with darts to deliver the contraceptive, and to mark them as having had it, since we won't want them double dosed.

Lets have each of these people make $15 an hour, work a 40 hr week, and not take vacation so they work 52 weeks a year. And if we allow that they will be able to dose and mark an average of 5 deer per day. In order to dose 1,000,000 deer every year, we would have to hire over 750 of these people. The salary alone would be $24 million per year. If, by buying in great volume, the contraceptive itself only costs $2 per dose, we would have cost the state over $32 million. And that does not include insurance benefits, workmans comp, fuel, or other travel costs.

What do you know of it? Have you researched it? Are you aware that there are, in fact, programs already implemented that utilize birth control as a means to controlling certain wild species? Rather than speculate in ways that ensure the notion appears silly and doomed to fail, why don't you look into it and then post about it after having done so?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

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.

A LIMITATION is not a REGULATION.

You are obviously not too stupid to understand this, because you went so far as to claim that you weren't trying to limit ownership of firearms... then proceed to tell me how you want to limit ownership of certain firearms.

If I want an AKLMNOP-999KMM firearm, I should be able to own one, if I can find one for sale! It does not matter if I am going to shoot ducks or WHAT my purpose might be, I have the Constitutional RIGHT to do this, and it can not be infringed. I don't need to justify it, and I don't need to explain it to your satisfaction. And furthermore, if you succeed in temporarily separating me from my right to bear arms, I have the capacity to make my own firearms, so I will still have them. One of my personal favorite guns, is a home-made .410 double-barrel pistol. I love to take that thing out in the woods and shoot it.

 

[cancel2 2022]

What do you know of it? Have you researched it? Are you aware that there are, in fact, programs already implemented that utilize birth control as a means to controlling certain wild species? Rather than speculate in ways that ensure the notion appears silly and doomed to fail, why don't you look into it and then post about it after having done so?

You have obviously researched it so why can't you tell us how contraception would work for deer?

 

[CanceledB]

You have obviously researched it so why can't you tell us how contraception would work for deer?

If you're interested, look into it. Info is readily available. It can and does work, which is why I brought it up.

 

[Canceled.2014.1]

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.

Whether you like it or not, the financial aspect of your "solution" is an issue. That you would decide not to continue to discuss the issue because of my biases, while ignoring your own biases towards reality, is laughable.

I am not being arrogant. I am simply stating the facts of the current situation, rather than lamenting the destruction that happened hundreds of years ago. You may wish that money were not an issue or that the human population would stop growing, but that is simply a fantasy, and does not serve any use except to fuel your disdain.

You want hunting to end and are willing to sacrifice human lives to do it. (the millions of dollars will be cut from some other state programs, no doubt costing human lives) Whereas hunting not only does not cost the budget, but actually funds much of the conservation efforts does not matter to you. As long as no animal is killed, all is well.

I can also guarantee, the deer killed by hunters die a much more humane death than those killed by predators or that die from starvation. And the fact that your solution is to introduce massive doses of contraceptive (which increased risks of cancer in human women by 3x) in order to have this "warm & fuzzy" feeling of stopping hunters shows you are being short-sighted. It also shows your extreme bias against the most practical method of dealing with the situation we have today. Whether it could have been prevented 100 or 500 years ago is a moot point.

If you want to cease our discussion, that is fine with me. But don't expect to be able to make disparaging remarks and insult, and then have the discussion stop.

 

[Canceled.2014.1]

What do you know of it? Have you researched it? Are you aware that there are, in fact, programs already implemented that utilize birth control as a means to controlling certain wild species? Rather than speculate in ways that ensure the notion appears silly and doomed to fail, why don't you look into it and then post about it after having done so?

I did not speculate about whether the birth controls would work. I simply pointed out the impractical nature of so large and expensive an effort, just so some people could feel better about there being no hunting.

I also speculated about the environmental effects of introducing huge doses of contraceptives into the environment.

 

[cancel2 2022]

If you're interested, look into it. Info is readily available. It can and does work, which is why I brought it up.

This guy seems to know what he is talking about, unless you know different.

http://www.bowsite.com/bowsite/features/armchair_biologist/immunocontraception/pill1.htm

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

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.

The Second Amendment specifically mentions the state. This is very important here, because it specifically gives the state the authority to regulate a militia. In order to ensure regulation, the state has to retain this authority, but it is not limitless, by any means. I didn't mean to imply this, if that's what you thought.

The authority given to the states in the 2nd, gives them the rights (according to SCOTUS) to regulate firearms. But we've distorted the intentions completely, because the state is supposed to advocate for MORE gun owning and BIGGER guns, that is what makes you "well regulated" or "well-equipped" as a militia. At some point, we moved far away from this, and now we interpret "well regulated" to mean something entirely different, and with an entirely different agenda.

 

[CanceledB]

Whether you like it or not, the financial aspect of your "solution" is an issue. That you would decide not to continue to discuss the issue because of my biases, while ignoring your own biases towards reality, is laughable.

Nonsense. My biases lean toward respect for the planet rather than favoring human agendas. That's at 100% complete odds with yours. I'm not ignoring my own biases; I'm openly acknowledging why I assert that the discussion with you will go nowhere. You are incapable of parting with the notion that man's agenda trumps everything else, because for you, it always will, so there's no point in furthering the discussion along the lines of what is in the best interest for the planet.

I am not being arrogant. I am simply stating the facts of the current situation, rather than lamenting the destruction that happened hundreds of years ago. You may wish that money were not an issue or that the human population would stop growing, but that is simply a fantasy, and does not serve any use except to fuel your disdain.

Yes, you're being arrogant. Your assumption that the human way and human agenda is the most important one is arrogant.

You want hunting to end and are willing to sacrifice human lives to do it. (the millions of dollars will be cut from some other state programs, no doubt costing human lives) Whereas hunting not only does not cost the budget, but actually funds much of the conservation efforts does not matter to you. As long as no animal is killed, all is well.

Your assertions and misinterpretations do little to promote further discussion nor the desire to try.

I can also guarantee, the deer killed by hunters die a much more humane death than those killed by predators or that die from starvation. And the fact that your solution is to introduce massive doses of contraceptive (which increased risks of cancer in human women by 3x) in order to have this "warm & fuzzy" feeling of stopping hunters shows you are being short-sighted. It also shows your extreme bias against the most practical method of dealing with the situation we have today. Whether it could have been prevented 100 or 500 years ago is a moot point.

Your warm-and-fuzzy meme is a dead giveaway that you have no understanding beyond your own wants and whims, and see my position as unworthy of a modicum of respect. Good day sir.

 

[Canceled.2014.1]

If you're interested, look into it. Info is readily available. It can and does work, which is why I brought it up.

What are the long-term effects of deer being dosed with contraceptives? You are willing to risk all the health issues that have been documented in humans when using birth control?

 

[CanceledB]

I did not speculate about whether the birth controls would work. I simply pointed out the impractical nature of so large and expensive an effort, just so some people could feel better about there being no hunting.

I also speculated about the environmental effects of introducing huge doses of contraceptives into the environment.

You simply 'speculated' on how you THOUGHT they would be implemented. In other words, you don't know what you're talking about but you sure hope it's the failure you're guessing it would be.

 

[cancel2 2022]

What are the long-term effects of deer being dosed with contraceptives? You are willing to risk all the health issues that have been documented in humans when using birth control?

There has been research done on chemicals which cause foetuses to be aborted but I doubt that would go down very well with the tree huggers either.

 

[anatta]

A LIMITATION is not a REGULATION.

You are obviously not too stupid to understand this, because you went so far as to claim that you weren't trying to limit ownership of firearms... then proceed to tell me how you want to limit ownership of certain firearms.

If I want an AKLMNOP-999KMM firearm, I should be able to own one, if I can find one for sale! It does not matter if I am going to shoot ducks or WHAT my purpose might be, I have the Constitutional RIGHT to do this, and it can not be infringed. I don't need to justify it, and I don't need to explain it to your satisfaction. And furthermore, if you succeed in temporarily separating me from my right to bear arms, I have the capacity to make my own firearms, so I will still have them. One of my personal favorite guns, is a home-made .410 double-barrel pistol. I love to take that thing out in the woods and shoot it.

AAA battery is a military weapon. While gunz are not my area of expertise, to the best of my knowledge civilians cannot buy military weapons (those designed specifically for combat).
I have no clue what AKLMNOP-999KMM is -it doesn't sound too healthy,but as I said - the topic has never came up in my discussions.
Nor have mortar rounds etc. but they were found in the Aurora shooters apt (from what i know).
I'll take your word on it. although why in the hell you'd want an anti aircraft gun to shoot ducks....

 

[Socrtease]

But you can't objectively evaluate history from the perspective that people realized what they didn't. The endowed rights didn't apply to what wasn't understood to be 'people' just as rights don't apply to horses and cattle today. That may seem harsh to you from today's perspective, but that's the point, in 1776, they didn't have today's perspective, theirs was much different, and it took many years to overcome and for perspectives to change.

The rest of the trash you wrote is not worth the time for me to respond. The nation was founded on the principle that all men are created equal and endowed rights by their Creator, and it is what sets us apart from any other nation on the planet. We went from being an insignificant new start-up country in 1776, to the world's greatest superpower ever known to man, in just over 200 years, far exceeding much older and better-established dynasties. Idiots? HARDLY!

Rights, in the way our founders saw them, were natural or god given. IF that is the case, when the founders denied rights to blacks they were violating natural, or god's law. It cannot apply to all humans and then you decide that some humans are less than human without violating natural law. Just because you possess a myopic racist view of what constitutes a human does not make you right. That white people viewed black people as less than human is NO LESS wrong than the Nazi's viewing Jews as less than human.

 

[Canceled.2014.1]

Nonsense. My biases lean toward respect for the planet rather than favoring human agendas. That's at 100% complete odds with yours. I'm not ignoring my own biases; I'm openly acknowledging why I assert that the discussion with you will go nowhere. You are incapable of parting with the notion that man's agenda trumps everything else, because for you, it always will, so there's no point in furthering the discussion along the lines of what is in the best interest for the planet.

I am absolutely not incapable of having a discussion of what is best for the planet. I am simply being practical in my search for solutions. If you choose to ignore the fact that humans and human societies will always rule in favor of humanity, that is your choice. But don't expect to accomplish much with that ideology.

Yes, you're being arrogant. Your assumption that the human way and human agenda is the most important one is arrogant.

You mistake practicality and realism for arrogance. There is a huge difference. I have fought against polluters and corporations that destroy our enviroments for most of my life. I have picketed companies. I have waded polluted waters to remove trash, risked my own life and health in trying to help cleanup poisoned and polluted environments and rescued more animals than I can count.I have had my life threatened numerous times because I participated in animal rescues in places that see no value in either pets of wild life. That you have the audacity to make accusations based on your own ignorance of what I believe and what I have done is laughable. I would LOVE to see a world in which the environment was given first concern, and not last. I would LOVE to live in a world where money was no object when it came to preserving our wild habitats. But I have a news flash for you, that ain't happening. So pardon me for being realistic in my approaches to problems. It makes for greater chances of actually accomplishing something.

Your warm-and-fuzzy meme is a dead giveaway that you have no understanding beyond your own wants and whims, and see my position as unworthy of a modicum of respect. Good day sir.

I have shown you far more respect than you have shown me. I have made no assumptions about your motives, beyond my one remark about "warm & fuzzy". And that remark is borne out by the fact that your "solution" is so unlikely to be able to be put into practice in our society as to be nothing more than a pipe dream. In a time when we are fighting tooth & nail to get medical care for our people, keep people fed & housed, and to educate our children, to think that any state or federal agency would be willing to spend billions of dollars on animal contraceptives is simply unrealistic to the extreme. And that is not putting humankind first. That is simply recognizing the world for what it is and trying my best to work within that framework.

That you would suggest dosing millions of animals with medicines that have not been studied for long term effects, and then suggest that I am arrogant shows your own arrogance and biases.

Good day to you, ma'am.

 

[Canceled.2014.1]

You simply 'speculated' on how you THOUGHT they would be implemented. In other words, you don't know what you're talking about but you sure hope it's the failure you're guessing it would be.

For someone who calls me arrogant, you certainly have no problem making assumptions about my motivations.

And, to remind you, it is not just the implementation of the plan that I discussed, but the long-term health risks to the animals. Something you seem to have glossed over.

However disgusting you feel hunting is, it does not force a huge change in the biology of the animals themselves. It does not attempt to control every individual animal. You want to rant about humans controlling things, implementing a program of dabbling with the hormones and breeding of an entire species certainly seems far more of a human control than hunting ever dreamed of being.

 

[Canceled.2014.1]

This guy seems to know what he is talking about, unless you know different.

http://www.bowsite.com/bowsite/features/armchair_biologist/immunocontraception/pill1.htm

And he raised some of the same issues I did. I suppose he is arrogant and biased as well.

 

[Howey]

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.

Scalia didn't just say that...

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said Sunday that there are "undoubtedly" limits to a person's right to bear arms under the Second Amendment, but that future court cases will have to decide where to draw the line...

"Some undoubtedly are [permissible] because there were some that were acknowledged at the time" the Constitution was written, Scalia said. He cited a practice from that era known as "frighting," where people "carried around a really horrible weapon just to scare people, like a head axe or something. That was, I believe, a misdemeanor."

“So yes, there are some limitations that can be imposed," Scalia said. "What they are will depend on what the society understood were reasonable limitations at the time."...

Scalia pointed out Sunday that that the Second Amendment "obviously" doesn't apply to weapons that can't be hand-carried, and modern-day weapons like "hand-held rocket launchers that can bring down airplanes" weren't factored in at the time of the writing of the Constitution.

“My starting point and probably my ending point will be what limitations are within the understood limitations that the society had at the time,” he said. “They had some limitations on the nature of arms that could be borne. So we’ll see what those limitations are as applied to modern weapons.”

Ultimately, Scalia said, any new gun restrictions will have to be weighed "very carefully,"

How's it feel to the right to have y'all's beloved conservative SCOTUS's throw you under the bus?