Joined
·
5,015 Posts
What do you think the face of hunters looks like during modern day? Good, bad, okay. My question is how respectful are hunters to their right, and how many make an entire group look good or bad?
I don't feel that it is a privilege. It's a RIGHT in my eyes, that we earn by being born into the top of the food chain. I don't even hunt, but I'll be damned if my fellow man is called a criminal for doing so. :!:#1DEER 1-I said:What do you think the face of hunters looks like during modern day? Good, bad, okay. My question is how respectful are hunters to their privlage, and how many make an entire group look good or bad?
I couldn't have said it better.LOAH said:I don't feel that it is a privilege. It's a RIGHT in my eyes, that we earn by being born into the top of the food chain. I don't even hunt, but I'll be damned if my fellow man is called a criminal for doing so. :!:#1DEER 1-I said:What do you think the face of hunters looks like during modern day? Good, bad, okay. My question is how respectful are hunters to their privlage, and how many make an entire group look good or bad?
I agree!grousehunter said:The Media is bad :!: , I think most people are starting to realize that.
A right is something you can practice without permission. Go shoot a deer in april and tell the C.O. it is your 'right' and see what he says. You don't need a permit to practice your religon, speak your mind, own a gun, or hang out with your buddies. Those are true rights. Hunting falls firmly in the 'privelage' category.LOAH said:I don't feel that it is a privilege. It's a RIGHT in my eyes, that we earn by being born into the top of the food chain. I don't even hunt, but I'll be damned if my fellow man is called a criminal for doing so. :!:
So what you are saying is that there really is no inalienable rights? The founding fathers were wrong on that? Is everything then just moral relativism? If we are taken over by a foreign force do we not have rights?ScottyP said:I think I follow you... No, you don't in fact have the same rights in another country as you do here. If mormonism is a hanging offense in Iran then it is not your 'right' to be (or at least practice) your religion. Our rights are garunteed us by our US Constitution and nothing else. If you are in a country that does not have free speech, you will not be able to speak your mind without reprcussion. As far as the gun thing, if our government bans guns, it will be in direct violation of the higest law in the land. Then we will all have a personal decision to make-- turn our weapons over to an illegal government or resist an illegal gonernment.
Nope. Simply saying that the US Constitution does not protect your rights outside of the US. What is a right worth if it is not protected? Our rights are protected by the collective people that make up this land. If you are not in this land and don't have that collectivity, your rights have little value. I would wager that if we were occupied by a foreign government, our rights would no longer exist as they do now.Nibble Nuts said:So what you are saying is that there really is no inalienable rights? The founding fathers were wrong on that? Is everything then just moral relativism? If we are taken over by a foreign force do we not have rights?
No it does not protect your rights out of the US, but that doesn't mean that those rights are non-existent. It means that they are being withheld from those people through tyranny. We are being occupied by a foreign government. Sure they came from the US and we voted them into office, but that does not mean that they are not actively destroying the original constitution. Right now there are some things going on that will affect our lifestyles if we do not stand up for them. There is the assualt weapons ban H.R. 1022 that is on the books pending approval. It will permanently ban owning firearms. There is the clean water act H.R. 1022 which is threatening to turn over all of US waters to the federal government. That can impact us fisherman severly. There is the Law of the Sea treaty which was recently signed by our government that turns over our ports and oceans to U.N. control. Its effects will basically impose a tax on the world. There are many more pending legislations taking place because those of us who are collectively supposed to ensure that we can utilize our rights without being punished by law are allowing it. We are calling our rights priviledges and not standing up to be heard. Hunting and fishing are rights. They should be reasonably governed by the states, not the feds. It is our right as a state to employ conservation officers to utilze our funds that we all have the right to give them to manage our wildlife and waters to protect our state and its citizens rights to hunt, and fish, and run the businesses that these activities can create. To have our own local stewardship over our resources. This is not a priviledge, it is a right. You need a permit to ensure that you are contributing your share of the duties this right entails. When we call it a priviledge and do not stand for our rights, the federal and local governments will exploit this.ScottyP said:Nope. Simply saying that the US Constitution does not protect your rights outside of the US. What is a right worth if it is not protected? Our rights are protected by the collective people that make up this land. If you are not in this land and don't have that collectivity, your rights have little value. I would wager that if we were occupied by a foreign government, our rights would no longer exist as they do now.Nibble Nuts said:So what you are saying is that there really is no inalienable rights? The founding fathers were wrong on that? Is everything then just moral relativism? If we are taken over by a foreign force do we not have rights?
Just for the sake of discussion, I am curious...In my hunter education course (about 20 years ago, yet I remember it clearly to this day), the instructors actually had a very long speech/monologue about why hunting was a privilege and not a right---take it as you want. Additionally, a felon loses their ability (right or privilege??, right I reckon) to posess a deadly weapon (according to an attorney source of mine can not even archery hunt), correct and therefore loses the privilege or right to hunt??? What is the answer?LOAH said:I don't feel that it is a privilege. It's a RIGHT in my eyes, that we earn by being born into the top of the food chain. I don't even hunt, but I'll be damned if my fellow man is called a criminal for doing so. :!: