The Right to Hunt

[Cecilie1200]

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?

As near as I can tell, a lot of leftists are trying very hard to turn us into the old Soviet Union, where there was only one store and it didn't have anything, anyway. Capitalism seems to give them hives.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

No, he's right. The Declaration of Independence doesn't actually hold the force of law. It was basically just a "Dear John" letter from the colonists to England.

While it is presumably an American ideal that all people should have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, it isn't actually codified into the law in those words.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Well, the way it was phrased on the ballot here in Arizona, it sounds like what they're trying to do is keep anyone other than the state legislature from regulating it, and keep anyone INCLUDING the state legislature from unreasonably restricting it. So I'm going to say this is about keeping the anti-hunting folks from using other agencies - the courts, Fish and Wildlife, whoever - from putting so many regulations on it that they in effect make it illegal.

Seasons, amounts of animals, etc. are all reasonable restrictions that no sensible hunter would object to.

 

[Wingsofwind]

What kind of legal document is that?

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

No, he's right. The Declaration of Independence doesn't actually hold the force of law. It was basically just a "Dear John" letter from the colonists to England.

While it is presumably an American ideal that all people should have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, it isn't actually codified into the law in those words.

You may be right, but it has been used as a legal document as I have posted...

Argument of John Quincy Adams, Before the Supreme Court of the United States : in the Case of the United States, Appellants, vs. Cinque, and Others, Africans, Captured in the schooner Amistad, by Lieut. Gedney; 1841

Avalon Project - Argument of John Quincy Adams, Before the Supreme Court of the United States : in the Case of the United States, Appellants, vs. Cinque, and Others, Africans, Captured in the schooner Amistad, by Lieut. Gedney; 1841

The fact that it is not totaly considered a legal document does not disprove what it means nor does it disprove that we do have those rights.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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

No, he's right. The Declaration of Independence doesn't actually hold the force of law. It was basically just a "Dear John" letter from the colonists to England.

While it is presumably an American ideal that all people should have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, it isn't actually codified into the law in those words.

You may be right, but it has been used as a legal document as I have posted...

Argument of John Quincy Adams, Before the Supreme Court of the United States : in the Case of the United States, Appellants, vs. Cinque, and Others, Africans, Captured in the schooner Amistad, by Lieut. Gedney; 1841

Avalon Project - Argument of John Quincy Adams, Before the Supreme Court of the United States : in the Case of the United States, Appellants, vs. Cinque, and Others, Africans, Captured in the schooner Amistad, by Lieut. Gedney; 1841

The fact that it is not totaly considered a legal document does not disprove what it means nor does it disprove that we do have those rights.

Did you actually READ his argument? He's not arguing that the Declaration of Independence is an actual law, the way the Constitution's provisions are laws. He's speaking rhetorically.

"It is indeed anomalous, and I know of no law, but one which I am not at liberty to argue before this Court, no law, statute or constitution, no code, no treaty, applicable to the proceedings of the Executive or the Judiciary, except that law, (pointing to the copy of the Declaration of Independence, hanging against one of the pillars of the court-room,) that law, two copies of which are ever before the eyes of your Honors. I know of no other law that reaches the case of my clients, but the law of Nature and of Nature's God on which our fathers placed our own national existence. The circumstances are so peculiar, that no code or treaty has provided for such a case."

He's referring to the "law" of how God would want us to behave, not statutory law.

And no, those rights are NOT necessarily guaranteed by law.

 

[Wingsofwind]

No, he's right. The Declaration of Independence doesn't actually hold the force of law. It was basically just a "Dear John" letter from the colonists to England.

While it is presumably an American ideal that all people should have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, it isn't actually codified into the law in those words.

You may be right, but it has been used as a legal document as I have posted...

Argument of John Quincy Adams, Before the Supreme Court of the United States : in the Case of the United States, Appellants, vs. Cinque, and Others, Africans, Captured in the schooner Amistad, by Lieut. Gedney; 1841

Avalon Project - Argument of John Quincy Adams, Before the Supreme Court of the United States : in the Case of the United States, Appellants, vs. Cinque, and Others, Africans, Captured in the schooner Amistad, by Lieut. Gedney; 1841

The fact that it is not totaly considered a legal document does not disprove what it means nor does it disprove that we do have those rights.

Did you actually READ his argument? He's not arguing that the Declaration of Independence is an actual law, the way the Constitution's provisions are laws. He's speaking rhetorically.

"It is indeed anomalous, and I know of no law, but one which I am not at liberty to argue before this Court, no law, statute or constitution, no code, no treaty, applicable to the proceedings of the Executive or the Judiciary, except that law, (pointing to the copy of the Declaration of Independence, hanging against one of the pillars of the court-room,) that law, two copies of which are ever before the eyes of your Honors. I know of no other law that reaches the case of my clients, but the law of Nature and of Nature's God on which our fathers placed our own national existence. The circumstances are so peculiar, that no code or treaty has provided for such a case."

He's referring to the "law" of how God would want us to behave, not statutory law.

And no, those rights are NOT necessarily guaranteed by law.

Okay, I did a little resurch on this and so far I have found that what you two are saying is somewhat true. I have found that the phrase "pursuit of happiness" is not set forth in the U. S. Constitution as you two are stating, however it is set forth in several state Constitutions thus making it a 'law' or legal 'right' in those states.

By the way, I didn't say John Quincy Adams was arguing that the Decleration of Independance was a legal document, just that he used it in the case.

 

[Cecilie1200]

You may be right, but it has been used as a legal document as I have posted...

Argument of John Quincy Adams, Before the Supreme Court of the United States : in the Case of the United States, Appellants, vs. Cinque, and Others, Africans, Captured in the schooner Amistad, by Lieut. Gedney; 1841

Avalon Project - Argument of John Quincy Adams, Before the Supreme Court of the United States : in the Case of the United States, Appellants, vs. Cinque, and Others, Africans, Captured in the schooner Amistad, by Lieut. Gedney; 1841

The fact that it is not totaly considered a legal document does not disprove what it means nor does it disprove that we do have those rights.

Did you actually READ his argument? He's not arguing that the Declaration of Independence is an actual law, the way the Constitution's provisions are laws. He's speaking rhetorically.

"It is indeed anomalous, and I know of no law, but one which I am not at liberty to argue before this Court, no law, statute or constitution, no code, no treaty, applicable to the proceedings of the Executive or the Judiciary, except that law, (pointing to the copy of the Declaration of Independence, hanging against one of the pillars of the court-room,) that law, two copies of which are ever before the eyes of your Honors. I know of no other law that reaches the case of my clients, but the law of Nature and of Nature's God on which our fathers placed our own national existence. The circumstances are so peculiar, that no code or treaty has provided for such a case."

He's referring to the "law" of how God would want us to behave, not statutory law.

And no, those rights are NOT necessarily guaranteed by law.

Okay, I did a little resurch on this and so far I have found that what you two are saying is somewhat true. I have found that the phrase "pursuit of happiness" is not set forth in the U. S. Constitution as you two are stating, however it is set forth in several state Constitutions thus making it a 'law' or legal 'right' in those states.

By the way, I didn't say John Quincy Adams was arguing that the Decleration of Independance was a legal document, just that he used it in the case.

Well, of COURSE he used it. Lawyers quote a lot of stuff in their cases, because they think it makes a good rhetorical point that will resonate with the court. He also quoted the Institutes of Justinian, right at the beginning, but I'm pretty sure he didn't think THAT was a US law, either.

And yeah, you WERE arguing that he used it as a legal document.

"You may be right, but it has been used as a legal document as I have posted..."

Your words.

 

[Wingsofwind]

Did you actually READ his argument? He's not arguing that the Declaration of Independence is an actual law, the way the Constitution's provisions are laws. He's speaking rhetorically.

"It is indeed anomalous, and I know of no law, but one which I am not at liberty to argue before this Court, no law, statute or constitution, no code, no treaty, applicable to the proceedings of the Executive or the Judiciary, except that law, (pointing to the copy of the Declaration of Independence, hanging against one of the pillars of the court-room,) that law, two copies of which are ever before the eyes of your Honors. I know of no other law that reaches the case of my clients, but the law of Nature and of Nature's God on which our fathers placed our own national existence. The circumstances are so peculiar, that no code or treaty has provided for such a case."

He's referring to the "law" of how God would want us to behave, not statutory law.

And no, those rights are NOT necessarily guaranteed by law.

Okay, I did a little resurch on this and so far I have found that what you two are saying is somewhat true. I have found that the phrase "pursuit of happiness" is not set forth in the U. S. Constitution as you two are stating, however it is set forth in several state Constitutions thus making it a 'law' or legal 'right' in those states.

By the way, I didn't say John Quincy Adams was arguing that the Decleration of Independance was a legal document, just that he used it in the case.

Well, of COURSE he used it. Lawyers quote a lot of stuff in their cases, because they think it makes a good rhetorical point that will resonate with the court. He also quoted the Institutes of Justinian, right at the beginning, but I'm pretty sure he didn't think THAT was a US law, either.

And yeah, you WERE arguing that he used it as a legal document.

"You may be right, but it has been used as a legal document as I have posted..."

Your words.

You said 'He's not arguing that the Declaration of Independence is an actual law'. You are right, I did say he USED it as a legal document, but I did not say he was arguing that it was a legal document. I do see that he was not stating it was a 'legal' document, but he was using it as A 'law'. Maybe not a 'legal' law, but still as a type of law. Besides, I have conceded that I was in a way wrong thinking the phrase 'pursuit of happiness' was in a legal document that the Federal law used/uses. However it is a 'legel law' at the states level in some states making in a right guaranteed by law in some states.

 

[The Rabbi]

Okay, I did a little resurch on this and so far I have found that what you two are saying is somewhat true. I have found that the phrase "pursuit of happiness" is not set forth in the U. S. Constitution as you two are stating, however it is set forth in several state Constitutions thus making it a 'law' or legal 'right' in those states.

By the way, I didn't say John Quincy Adams was arguing that the Decleration of Independance was a legal document, just that he used it in the case.

Well, of COURSE he used it. Lawyers quote a lot of stuff in their cases, because they think it makes a good rhetorical point that will resonate with the court. He also quoted the Institutes of Justinian, right at the beginning, but I'm pretty sure he didn't think THAT was a US law, either.

And yeah, you WERE arguing that he used it as a legal document.

"You may be right, but it has been used as a legal document as I have posted..."

Your words.

You said 'He's not arguing that the Declaration of Independence is an actual law'. You are right, I did say he USED it as a legal document, but I did not say he was arguing that it was a legal document. I do see that he was not stating it was a 'legal' document, but he was using it as A 'law'. Maybe not a 'legal' law, but still as a type of law. Besides, I have conceded that I was in a way wrong thinking the phrase 'pursuit of happiness' was in a legal document that the Federal law used/uses. However it is a 'legel law' at the states level in some states making in a right guaranteed by law in some states.

You would have a lot more credibility if you would just admit that were mistaken, that the Declaration is not a legal document, and that there is no "right to life liberty and pursuit of happiness" enshrined anywhere in the US legal code.

 

[uscitizen]

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.

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

the way todays American hunters operate deer meat must cost them about $100/lb.

and we have enough game in america to feed us all for about 1 day.

 

[uscitizen]

Okay, I did a little resurch on this and so far I have found that what you two are saying is somewhat true. I have found that the phrase "pursuit of happiness" is not set forth in the U. S. Constitution as you two are stating, however it is set forth in several state Constitutions thus making it a 'law' or legal 'right' in those states.

By the way, I didn't say John Quincy Adams was arguing that the Decleration of Independance was a legal document, just that he used it in the case.

Well, of COURSE he used it. Lawyers quote a lot of stuff in their cases, because they think it makes a good rhetorical point that will resonate with the court. He also quoted the Institutes of Justinian, right at the beginning, but I'm pretty sure he didn't think THAT was a US law, either.

And yeah, you WERE arguing that he used it as a legal document.

"You may be right, but it has been used as a legal document as I have posted..."

Your words.

You said 'He's not arguing that the Declaration of Independence is an actual law'. You are right, I did say he USED it as a legal document, but I did not say he was arguing that it was a legal document. I do see that he was not stating it was a 'legal' document, but he was using it as A 'law'. Maybe not a 'legal' law, but still as a type of law. Besides, I have conceded that I was in a way wrong thinking the phrase 'pursuit of happiness' was in a legal document that the Federal law used/uses. However it is a 'legel law' at the states level in some states making in a right guaranteed by law in some states.

that makes my head hurt to read.

 

[theHawk]

Did you actually READ his argument? He's not arguing that the Declaration of Independence is an actual law, the way the Constitution's provisions are laws. He's speaking rhetorically.

"It is indeed anomalous, and I know of no law, but one which I am not at liberty to argue before this Court, no law, statute or constitution, no code, no treaty, applicable to the proceedings of the Executive or the Judiciary, except that law, (pointing to the copy of the Declaration of Independence, hanging against one of the pillars of the court-room,) that law, two copies of which are ever before the eyes of your Honors. I know of no other law that reaches the case of my clients, but the law of Nature and of Nature's God on which our fathers placed our own national existence. The circumstances are so peculiar, that no code or treaty has provided for such a case."

He's referring to the "law" of how God would want us to behave, not statutory law.

And no, those rights are NOT necessarily guaranteed by law.

Okay, I did a little resurch on this and so far I have found that what you two are saying is somewhat true. I have found that the phrase "pursuit of happiness" is not set forth in the U. S. Constitution as you two are stating, however it is set forth in several state Constitutions thus making it a 'law' or legal 'right' in those states.

By the way, I didn't say John Quincy Adams was arguing that the Decleration of Independance was a legal document, just that he used it in the case.

Well, of COURSE he used it. Lawyers quote a lot of stuff in their cases, because they think it makes a good rhetorical point that will resonate with the court. He also quoted the Institutes of Justinian, right at the beginning, but I'm pretty sure he didn't think THAT was a US law, either.

And yeah, you WERE arguing that he used it as a legal document.

"You may be right, but it has been used as a legal document as I have posted..."

Your words.

Well by your own admition he pointed to it and called it "that law". The Declaration of Independence is certainly a "legal document" to our nation as it was signed and ratified by the Continental Congress. If it isn't a legal document then neither is our Constitution.

 

[The Rabbi]

No, it isn't. The Continental COngress is not the Republic we now have. It was never a legal document. That's why it was called a "Declaration."

 

[Cecilie1200]

Okay, I did a little resurch on this and so far I have found that what you two are saying is somewhat true. I have found that the phrase "pursuit of happiness" is not set forth in the U. S. Constitution as you two are stating, however it is set forth in several state Constitutions thus making it a 'law' or legal 'right' in those states.

By the way, I didn't say John Quincy Adams was arguing that the Decleration of Independance was a legal document, just that he used it in the case.

Well, of COURSE he used it. Lawyers quote a lot of stuff in their cases, because they think it makes a good rhetorical point that will resonate with the court. He also quoted the Institutes of Justinian, right at the beginning, but I'm pretty sure he didn't think THAT was a US law, either.

And yeah, you WERE arguing that he used it as a legal document.

"You may be right, but it has been used as a legal document as I have posted..."

Your words.

You said 'He's not arguing that the Declaration of Independence is an actual law'. You are right, I did say he USED it as a legal document, but I did not say he was arguing that it was a legal document. I do see that he was not stating it was a 'legal' document, but he was using it as A 'law'. Maybe not a 'legal' law, but still as a type of law. Besides, I have conceded that I was in a way wrong thinking the phrase 'pursuit of happiness' was in a legal document that the Federal law used/uses. However it is a 'legel law' at the states level in some states making in a right guaranteed by law in some states.

Pitiful attempt at hairsplitting and backpedaling. You're going to have to do better than that around here, newbie.

Next time you step on your johnson, just admit it and move on.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Okay, I did a little resurch on this and so far I have found that what you two are saying is somewhat true. I have found that the phrase "pursuit of happiness" is not set forth in the U. S. Constitution as you two are stating, however it is set forth in several state Constitutions thus making it a 'law' or legal 'right' in those states.

By the way, I didn't say John Quincy Adams was arguing that the Decleration of Independance was a legal document, just that he used it in the case.

Well, of COURSE he used it. Lawyers quote a lot of stuff in their cases, because they think it makes a good rhetorical point that will resonate with the court. He also quoted the Institutes of Justinian, right at the beginning, but I'm pretty sure he didn't think THAT was a US law, either.

And yeah, you WERE arguing that he used it as a legal document.

"You may be right, but it has been used as a legal document as I have posted..."

Your words.

Well by your own admition he pointed to it and called it "that law". The Declaration of Independence is certainly a "legal document" to our nation as it was signed and ratified by the Continental Congress. If it isn't a legal document then neither is our Constitution.

That's like trying to declare the law of gravity is a legal precedent because it's called the "LAW" of gravity.

I wrote a letter to someone the other day. My business partner read it over, argued with me about it, made some compromised changes, and then we both signed it. So it was signed and ratified (which is basically just a vote saying we agree with the content), but that doesn't make IT a legal document, either.

The Declaration of Independence was, as I've said, merely a "Dear John" letter to England from the colonists. The fact that they argued and compromised over what it would say and that a lot of them then signed it doesn't change what it was.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

I agree.

 

[shintao]

The big picture is, if they can take away your right to hunt, you will have no right to a rifle. Best protect hunting rights. They already took Canadian rifles for their One World Order.

The Second Amendment is not about hunting.

Oh excuse me, hunting season we bring down grizzys with a sling shot. Your off your Lotus blossom.

 

[Samson]

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.

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

the way todays American hunters operate deer meat must cost them about $100/lb.

and we have enough game in america to feed us all for about 1 day.

SOME American hunters, yes.

Ran into some hunting guides in a bar in Wyoming that were laughing uproariously recounting their latest experience: Bringing out a bunch of Germans that had flown from Berlin to Casper to go....



Prarie Dog Hunting.

 

[shintao]

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.

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

the way todays American hunters operate deer meat must cost them about $100/lb.

and we have enough game in america to feed us all for about 1 day.

That should tell you something about where America is actually at, huh? Yes, hunting game should be a right, afterall it is your game. And some backwoods people surivive by hunting game year round.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

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.

Yeah, it was on our ballot here. I think it had something to do with the retards who are scared that Obama is going to take our guns away.