The Right to Hunt

[Vel]

I noticed that several Southern states are voting on whether or not the Right to Hunt and Fish should be included as an amendment in the state constitution.

What exactly does this mean? Does it mean that if I don't want someone to hunt on my property, that I am violating their constitutional rights? Does it mean that hunting out of season would be a violation of constitutional rights?

Help. Thanks.

Almost sounds like it. Tennessee just passed a law recently, unless I'm mistaken, stating that bars and restaurants must allow patrons to carry concealed weapons on the premises. That's like the gun authoritarians version of the restaurant smoking bans. It's not the owners property anymore, it's the government's (which it pretty much is anyways, that's what a property tax reminds you of every time you pay).

If you are not mistaken, I want to move to Tennesee!

He is mistaken to a point. Under the law he is speaking of, any establishment can ban guns or allow them as they choose.

 

[The Rabbi]

How can you not see hunting as a right? Hunting and gathering are the means to acquire food.

I go to WalMart. Maybe that ought to be a right too?

It is a right, the right to shop where you please. Would you let the gov. tell you where you can and can not shop?

It isn't a right. NOt everything is a right. Making it not a right is not the same as making it forbidden.

 

[Wingsofwind]

Almost sounds like it. Tennessee just passed a law recently, unless I'm mistaken, stating that bars and restaurants must allow patrons to carry concealed weapons on the premises. That's like the gun authoritarians version of the restaurant smoking bans. It's not the owners property anymore, it's the government's (which it pretty much is anyways, that's what a property tax reminds you of every time you pay).

If you are not mistaken, I want to move to Tennesee!

He is mistaken to a point. Under the law he is speaking of, any establishment can ban guns or allow them as they choose.

This is the way it is here in Missouri.

 

[xotoxi]

I noticed that several Southern states are voting on whether or not the Right to Hunt and Fish should be included as an amendment in the state constitution.

What exactly does this mean? Does it mean that if I don't want someone to hunt on my property, that I am violating their constitutional rights? Does it mean that hunting out of season would be a violation of constitutional rights?

Help. Thanks.

Almost sounds like it. Tennessee just passed a law recently, unless I'm mistaken, stating that bars and restaurants must allow patrons to carry concealed weapons on the premises. That's like the gun authoritarians version of the restaurant smoking bans. It's not the owners property anymore, it's the government's (which it pretty much is anyways, that's what a property tax reminds you of every time you pay).

I heard that the law is: everyone carry guns. If you kill someone, no, you get murdered. You go to jail.

 

[Wingsofwind]

I go to WalMart. Maybe that ought to be a right too?

It is a right, the right to shop where you please. Would you let the gov. tell you where you can and can not shop?

It isn't a right. NOt everything is a right. Making it not a right is not the same as making it forbidden.

So are you telling me we do not have the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

 

[FRAGO 242]

Almost sounds like it. Tennessee just passed a law recently, unless I'm mistaken, stating that bars and restaurants must allow patrons to carry concealed weapons on the premises. That's like the gun authoritarians version of the restaurant smoking bans. It's not the owners property anymore, it's the government's (which it pretty much is anyways, that's what a property tax reminds you of every time you pay).

No, dumbshit.

Thanks for the reminder of why I love this place.

 

[FRAGO 242]

I heard that the law is: everyone carry guns. If you kill someone, no, you get murdered. You go to jail.

 

[The Rabbi]

It is a right, the right to shop where you please. Would you let the gov. tell you where you can and can not shop?

It isn't a right. NOt everything is a right. Making it not a right is not the same as making it forbidden.

So are you telling me we do not have the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

No. Where does it say you do?

 

[Wingsofwind]

It isn't a right. NOt everything is a right. Making it not a right is not the same as making it forbidden.

So are you telling me we do not have the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

No. Where does it say you do?

lol, ever hear of the Declaration of Independence?

"We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

 

[The Rabbi]

So are you telling me we do not have the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

No. Where does it say you do?

lol, ever hear of the Declaration of Independence?

"We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

What kind of legal document is that?

 

[FRAGO 242]

It has the same legal implications as the US Constitution (aka ZERO)

 

[The Rabbi]

It has the same legal implications as the US Constitution (aka ZERO)

Uh, no.

 

[Wingsofwind]

No. Where does it say you do?

lol, ever hear of the Declaration of Independence?

"We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

What kind of legal document is that?

hmm, I am beginning to think you are just trying to take me in circles here.

 

[The Rabbi]

lol, ever hear of the Declaration of Independence?

"We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

What kind of legal document is that?

hmm, I am beginning to think you are just trying to take me in circles here.

That might be because you are woefully misinformed.

 

[Wingsofwind]

It has the same legal implications as the US Constitution (aka ZERO)

lol, I can almost agree with that one. However, if people start wising up it will become important again.

 

[The Rabbi]

It has the same legal implications as the US Constitution (aka ZERO)

lol, I can almost agree with that one. However, if people start wising up it will become important again.

When has the Declaration of Independence ever been important to the Republic as a legal document?

 

[Wingsofwind]

It has the same legal implications as the US Constitution (aka ZERO)

lol, I can almost agree with that one. However, if people start wising up it will become important again.

When has the Declaration of Independence ever been important to the Republic as a legal document?

Well, eveyone I know that is passionate about our country sees it as a legal document, or at least VERY important.

 

[Wingsofwind]

John Quincy Adams used the Declaration of Independence as a legal document in the Supreme Court case involving the Amistad in 1841.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It means that King Obama cannot declare that all the deer in all the forests in the land are actually his, what is so hard to understand about that?

What is hard to understand is that it is some inherent right. Right is a heavy word and gets thrown around too damn much. I cannot see hunting as a right.

Eating is pretty much a right, and the right to hunt is historically tied to the right to eat. That is what got Robin Hood in trouble, all the robbing from the rich was nothing more than poaching on the king's hunting preserves, which was all of England. While I would agree that claiming rights is a slippery slope, I see nothing wrong with enshrining this one in the sate constitutions if the people all vote on it. It is better than slamming it through the courts, and gives everyone a chance to vote on it.

 

[FA_Q2]

It means that King Obama cannot declare that all the deer in all the forests in the land are actually his, what is so hard to understand about that?

What is hard to understand is that it is some inherent right. Right is a heavy word and gets thrown around too damn much. I cannot see hunting as a right.

Eating is pretty much a right, and the right to hunt is historically tied to the right to eat. That is what got Robin Hood in trouble, all the robbing from the rich was nothing more than poaching on the king's hunting preserves, which was all of England. While I would agree that claiming rights is a slippery slope, I see nothing wrong with enshrining this one in the sate constitutions if the people all vote on it. It is better than slamming it through the courts, and gives everyone a chance to vote on it.

While not unreasonable, I get frustrated at how much the word is thrown around. It is also a detriment that it will be torn to ribbons. That 'right' will be subject to all kinds of crap like seasons, amount of animals, type of weapon ect. and that kind of shredding desensitizes us to our actual rights. That is what has happened to the first amendment until it barely exists anymore and I do not want to see another 'right' subjected to that. IMHO, we need to be concentrating on restoring the rights we once had, not creating new ones out of whole cloth.