1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Is SPCA anti-gun?

Discussion in 'Legal' started by boofus, Aug 28, 2004.

  1. boofus

    boofus Guest

    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.

  2. Harry Tuttle

    Harry Tuttle Well-Known Member

    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
  3. Art Eatman

    Art Eatman Administrator Staff Member

    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.


    "I brake for animals, and shoot 'em and eat 'em."
  4. MP5

    MP5 Well-Known Member

    Anti-hunting isn't the same as anti-gun.
  5. shep854

    shep854 Well-Known Member

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

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

    Art Eatman Administrator Staff Member

    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...

  7. MP5

    MP5 Well-Known Member

    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.
  8. JohnBT

    JohnBT Well-Known Member

    So hunting and killing a rabid animal is morally indefensible? How about...oh, never mind, you're mind is made up already I fear.

  9. Zundfolge

    Zundfolge Well-Known Member

    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.
  10. Hawkmoon

    Hawkmoon Well-Known Member

    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.
  11. CannibalCrowley

    CannibalCrowley Well-Known Member

    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

    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.
  12. MP5

    MP5 Well-Known Member

    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.
    Last edited: Aug 30, 2004
  13. RevDisk

    RevDisk Well-Known Member

    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.
  14. CannibalCrowley

    CannibalCrowley Well-Known Member

    What about someone who kills an animal for amusement and eats it?
  15. RevDisk

    RevDisk Well-Known Member

    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.
  16. stringj

    stringj Member

    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.
  17. Firethorn

    Firethorn Well-Known Member

    RevDisk, that sounds like an interesting story...
  18. greyhound

    greyhound Well-Known Member

    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!
  19. Mulliga

    Mulliga Well-Known Member

    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...
  20. SteveS

    SteveS Well-Known Member

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

Share This Page