Is SPCA anti-gun?


PDA






boofus
August 28, 2004, 10:04 PM
I donated $10 to them today to help them keep critters in shelters and run pet adoptions. I'm wondering are they gungrabbers? I did a couple of searches on the 'net for "SPCA gun control" and didn't really turn anything up. I would hate to have donated money to a bunch of grabbers and was wondering if anyone has any info on them?

Are they just pet lovers? Or are they the rabid leftwing animal rights idiot type of organization? I'm hoping they are just pet lovers, the radical treehuggers probably wouldn't condone adopting animals as pets.

:confused:

If you enjoyed reading about "Is SPCA anti-gun?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Harry Tuttle
August 28, 2004, 10:47 PM
the SPCA are the animal shelter people
they seem to stick to spay/neuter and rescue

Humane Society USA and Fund for Animals are anti gun blissninnies

Art Eatman
August 29, 2004, 12:03 AM
Yeah, it's the HSUS which is as virulently anti-hunting as PETA. Neither outfit spends any significant amount of money on animals. It's all about the politics of owning pets, eating meat and hunting. They're agin 'em. And, fishing, as well.

And that's all a matter of public record.

Art

"I brake for animals, and shoot 'em and eat 'em."

MP5
August 29, 2004, 08:24 AM
Yeah, it's the HSUS which is as virulently anti-hunting as PETA.

Anti-hunting isn't the same as anti-gun.

shep854
August 29, 2004, 10:39 AM
"Anti-hunting isn't the same as anti-gun."

Not exactly, but it's waaay too close for comfort.:uhoh:

Art Eatman
August 29, 2004, 10:44 AM
MP5, I've spent a lot of time around the anti-hnting bunch. I'd rather get them to rethink their views, as much as is possible, instead of go to preaching to the choir at a pro-gun website.

Anti-hunters are a very-high-majority anti-gun. Concurrent with "They sell meat at the grocery store." is "You don't need a gun; you have police."

Not many Sierra Club types with CHLs...

Art

MP5
August 30, 2004, 09:03 AM
Art, I take your point, but in fairness, it's best to label each person's view for what it is and not make assumptions. We don't like people making broad assumptions that gun owners are all redneck nutcases, do we?

For instance, a bow hunter or fisherman might not care about RKBA issues, CCW, or guns at all. Another person might oppose hunting for one reason or another even while supporting the 2nd Amendment and/or owning firearms. For example, I'm a proud gun owner and supporter of the RKBA yet think hunting for sheer sport (as opposed to putting food on the table, which even then isn't truly necessary since vegetarianism is a healthy option) is repugnant and morally indefensible.

JohnBT
August 30, 2004, 09:48 AM
So hunting and killing a rabid animal is morally indefensible? How about...oh, never mind, you're mind is made up already I fear.

John

Zundfolge
August 30, 2004, 12:23 PM
Humane Society USA and Fund for Animals are anti gun blissninnies

Keep in mind that the Humane Society of the United States is NOT the Humane Society ... at least not as we usually think of it ... they have a confusingly similar name, but they are NOT the same organization.

Most "Humane Societies" are local organizations and your local animal shelter is more then likely NOT connected to the Humane Society of the United States.

Hawkmoon
August 30, 2004, 12:36 PM
So hunting and killing a rabid animal is morally indefensible? How about...oh, never mind, you're mind is made up already I fear.
He made an exception for hunting to put food on the table, and I don't believe rabid animals were mentioned at all. I happen to agree with the gentleman -- hunting for "sport" is morally indefensible. When God gave Man "dominion" over the birds of the air and the beasts of the field, He gave us the responsibility to care for them, not free license to kill them for fun.

That aside, it might also behoove you to remember that the 2nd Amendment is all about self-defense against an immoral government, and has nothing to do with hunting. One does not need to be pro-hunting to be pro-RKBA.

CannibalCrowley
August 30, 2004, 12:54 PM
The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) is the left arm of PETA. As for them doing good for animals, they said it best:

“[T]he Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) is not affiliated with, nor is it a parent organization for, local humane societies, animal shelters, or animal care and control agencies … The HSUS does not operate or have direct control over any animal shelter.” — From a 2001 disclaimer issued by the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS)

For more details: ActivistCash - HSUS (http://www.activistcash.com/organization_overview.cfm/oid/136)

As for them being antis their group really doesn't cover that issue, but I'd be willing to bet that the majority of their directors do not support the 2nd Amd. People who lean as far to the left as PETA and HSUS aren't very likely to support the RKBA.

MP5
August 30, 2004, 01:24 PM
So hunting and killing a rabid animal is morally indefensible? How about...oh, never mind, you're mind is made up already I fear

Since you don't know me, why would you assume my mind is made up? When people hold views that differ from yours, it doesn't logically follow that they're obstinant or ignorant. And as Hawkmoon noted, I never mentioned anything about self-defense against rabid animals. What does that have to do with hunting, anyway? I've never heard of hunters searching for rabid racoon meat to put on their table or placing a rabid dog head on the wall of their trophy room.

I also agree with Hawkmoon that our role as the dominant species (in terms of power and intellect) on the planet implies a role of enlightened stewardship, not butchery for kicks. From what I understand, the same holds true when addressing the issue from a Christian standpoint based on Genesis. "Dominion" was granted to man, who was created in "God's image." God doesn't go around blasting his creatures for fun, but rather judged his creation "good" and cares for it. The idea is that man is granted dominion to act like a just king, not granted the tyranny of a malicious, capricious despot.

RevDisk
August 30, 2004, 02:10 PM
So hunting and killing a rabid animal is morally indefensible? How about...oh, never mind, you're mind is made up already I fear.

Rabid animals tend to be threats. Basically, killing an animal with a nasty disease is generally an extension of "self defense".



There's a big difference between killing a deer then eating it, and shooting an animal for amusement to leave the corpse to rot. I personally have no problem with people killing animals for food. Humans are naturally meat eaters.

Killing an animal for personal amusement with no intentions of eating it and intending to leave the corpse somewhere in the woods is not something I think highly of. I have heard many deer hunters voice similiar opinions.

CannibalCrowley
August 30, 2004, 02:38 PM
RevDisk There's a big difference between killing a deer then eating it, and shooting an animal for amusement to leave the corpse to rot. What about someone who kills an animal for amusement and eats it?

RevDisk
August 30, 2004, 02:53 PM
What about someone who kills an animal for amusement and eats it?

Good for them. Ask me about the story involving a live ox, an ox roast and a group of vegetarians sometime when I'm inebriated.

stringj
August 30, 2004, 03:16 PM
I hunted when I was much younger but don't anymore. I work with people that hunt many different types of game. I have heard that if deer in the south weren't hunted, many of them would starve due to over-population. I had much rather a hunter kill an animal than the animal starve to death. I have never heard it put the way that Hawkmoon did. Gives me a different prospective to think about.
Jerry

Firethorn
August 30, 2004, 04:11 PM
RevDisk, that sounds like an interesting story...

greyhound
August 30, 2004, 06:54 PM
Most "Humane Societies" are local organizations and your local animal shelter is more then likely NOT connected to the Humane Society of the United States.

Good. I took the pup to the Baltimore County Humane Society's "Paws On Parade" last year and a good time was had by all - plus lots of money for the local shelter.

Would NOT want to support anti- hunting or anti-gun groups. Stick to finding homes for unwanted pups and kitties!

Mulliga
August 30, 2004, 07:45 PM
hunting for "sport" is morally indefensible. When God gave Man "dominion" over the birds of the air and the beasts of the field, He gave us the responsibility to care for them, not free license to kill them for fun.

They're just animals. They feel pain, all right, but they have no feelings ... if a moose or bear kills you, they feel zero guilt. Why should you feel guilty when killing them, especially if they are a nuisance or if it's fun to do?

I've read that if everyone went vegetarian world hunger would disappear. That means, then, that the only reason people eat meat is because it tastes good. Isn't that the same as "having fun"?

Just trying to play devil's advocate... it's nice seeing people talk about stewardship and protecting animals, but I wear leather shoes, eat eggs grown in huge poultry factories, eat hamburgers...

SteveS
August 30, 2004, 09:33 PM
There's a big difference between killing a deer then eating it, and shooting an animal for amusement to leave the corpse to rot.

The first situation you describe is hunting, the second is not. In many states, leaving an animal to rot is illegal (and certainly unethical).

MP5
August 31, 2004, 08:31 AM
They're just animals. They feel pain, all right, but they have no feelings

I hope that statement fell within your professed devil's advocacy. Any pet owner, shelter worker, vet, animal biologist, etc. can tell you that animals can have complex personalities and emotions. I'd recommend spending serious time with animals, interacting with them to observe for yourself.

What you said is akin to someone arguing Africa doesn't exist because they've never personally been there. Or more to the point, it's as silly and ethically dangerous as arguing that certain people are "just" animals who feel pain but have no real or significant feelings, and therefore it's ok to brutalize/enslave/kill them. Recall the pseudo-scientific arguments of the past that held that blacks or Jews were emotional or intellectual subhumans. Same class of thinking.

CannibalCrowley
August 31, 2004, 10:21 AM
MP5 Or more to the point, it's as silly and ethically dangerous as arguing that certain people are "just" animals who feel pain but have no real or significant feelings, and therefore it's ok to brutalize/enslave/kill them. Recall the pseudo-scientific arguments of the past that held that blacks or Jews were emotional or intellectual subhumans. Same class of thinking. Are you saying that animals and humans should be treated as equals? They're either equal or they're "just animals".

Art Eatman
August 31, 2004, 11:39 AM
Hey! "Sport hunting" is one of those phrases which has different meanings to different people. I grew up with the accepted meaning of "non-subsistence" hunting.

So what I'm saying is be careful how you use the term, or how you interpret it. The reader has no obligation to understand; the writer does have an obligation to make himself understood.

From interviews in magazines, the leadership of HSUS subscribes to the policies of PETA as regards all animals. They're planning that after they eliminate hunting, they'll go after fishermen next. That's public statement, on record. Note that Sen. Kerry has appeared at HSUS functions, endorsing their activities.

Ingrid Newkirk, founder of PETA in the US, is on record with her, "A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy".

These people want the power of government used to create their version of a perfect world. They do not recognize the concept of individual sovereignty (except maybe for themselves). I have yet to meet any person with this worldview who is pro-gun. None, zero, zip, nada.

If anybody wants to get into theological views of man and animal, go to some other website.

Art

RevDisk
August 31, 2004, 12:11 PM
RevDisk, that sounds like an interesting story...

Ok, now that I finally got some sleep, here's the story. Probably off-topic, but hey I think it's a nifty story.


One of buddies helped organize a small Ren Faire. He decided to have a nice old fashion ox roast. Called up a couple places, and finally got a company to deliver said ox a few hours before the official ox roast start time.

Everything is going smoothly at Ren Faire until a pickup truck with a very large enclosed trailer shows up. Said enclosed trailer turns out to contain an ox. A live one. Whoops, buddy forgot to request a dead cleaned one.

A bunch of us have a huttle and try to decide how to fix the situation. While this is going on, a small group of vegetarians are petting said ox and encouraging the kids to do the same. They also name the ox "Betsy". (Why, I have no freakin clue.)

Two of the people there were hunters, and knew how to properly clean the hide. I would have done so myself, but I literally have zero knowledge of how to do so. One snag, their kids were now petting Betsy and they didn't want to "traumatize" their kids. The kids were all really young, so in the interest of saving on therapy bills, I volunteered to kill the ox.

Now, I've never killed an ox before and the bloody ox was a big critter. I look around for a proper weapon to kill the land whale.... I decided on a nice Scottish Claymore sword (sorry, sorry, "Claidheamh-mor" for you rabid Scots out there). The sword was as tall as me, and weighed a ton.

I get the vegetarians to pet the ox to keep it relatively still. As it's a Ren Faire, they don't think it's odd for a guy to have a giant sword.

One swipe of the Claymore later, the vegetarians and I are covered in blood, and Betsy's head is seperated from Betsy's body. I was honestly surprised how much blood Betsy had, and how messy a beheading really is. I'll skip the details.


Well, I felt kinda guilty for poor Betsy... That is, until they chucked Betsy over a fire and Betsy started smelling really good. I got some interesting looks from people walking around in a Ren outfit literally covered in blood head to toe.

Silver Bullet
August 31, 2004, 04:44 PM
Is the SPCA the same organization as the ASPCA ?

Zundfolge
August 31, 2004, 05:02 PM
Thanks, RevDisk, now I have coffee all over my monitor :neener:

Silver Bullet
September 9, 2004, 10:19 PM
Well, I'm not sure if the SPCA is the same as the ASPCA, but this little tidbit is interesting
http://www.animalrights.net/archives/year/1998/000053.html
but seems to be much less indicting than what I've seen recently of the HSUS.

Silver Bullet
September 11, 2004, 01:54 AM
Or, for a much more extreme organization, consider PETA:
http://www.consumerfreedom.com/article_detail.cfm/article/156

Be sure to scroll down the site's page to see the PETA "comic". This is also featured on the back cover of the Sept 13 issue of U.S. News & World Report

If you enjoyed reading about "Is SPCA anti-gun?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!