Effect of declining hunting on RKBA?

[22-rimfire]

Sometimes I would like to post a thread topic on "reasonable" gun control, to get people's ideas. But I'm afraid that I would be called a Troll and many more bad names over the topic. So, I don't. I for one don't know what is "reasonable"; I am just starting from where we are now and trying to back up a bit.

 

[#shooter]

nineseven I have to disagree

It is neither practical nor logical to have limitless rights. The fact is there are limits on many rights. Here are some examples:

First Amendment- There is no mention that free speech must be truthful. Are you saying my free speech includes publishing lies about you and your affairs as truth? What if my lies cause financial hardship, injury or death? I guess it’s too bad for you. It’s my right to say what I want no matter the consequences??? Do corporations have the right to falsely advertise? If it is 100% free speech or nothing. According to nineseven, businesses have the right to falsely advertise.

Second Amendment – As the previous posters indicated, I guess we can all own nuclear weapons and missile launchers?

Fourth Amendment- Technically you should not have an expectation of privacy from the government or anyone else, because privacy is not specifically mentioned, it is implied via the courts. According to nineseven's logic: Wire tapping is ok. Monitoring your financial records is ok. Monitoring your web browsing is ok. Should your employer/wife/ex-wife/insurance company know what web sites you looked at this month?

Eighth Amendment- I suppose by nineseven's argument nineseven is against the death penalty and harsh prison sentences. No cruel or unusual punishment, no exceptions.

If we allow these rights to go unfettered our society would implode. That is why we have a balance of power and our government is of the people to find that balance between rights of the individual and the good of society as a whole.

Back to the question at hand, I would think we would want hunters involved rather than not involved in RKBA. We may argue over the details. I think both sides agree more than they disagree. And no one should have the expectation that there will be 100% agreement. When we disagree we should not use personal attacks.

The decline in hunting is not just a left/right or pro-gun/anti issue. Private land is harder to access; public land is being usurped by corporations. There is no clean water in 19 states. There is tremendous loss of habitat to development. These things add up to a hunter.

Hunters are usually on the right of most issues and they are finding that the Republican/right pro-business ties are hurting where they hunt. Are they willing to give up some gun rights like automatic weapons to create alliances with the left to preserve land? Most pure RKBAers don’t care a lick about mining or logging because those issues usually don’t affect them. Often political candidates on the right supports pro-gun issues but if they also support increased oil and gas exploration in prime elk habitat that puts the hunter on the spot in Colorado, Wyoming, Nebraska, etc. The left is actively trying to get hunters to give a little on gun control for support on the environment. If you’re a hunter that had to choose between pro-gun vs. pro-wildlife/habitat what do you pick? Hunters are finding themselves between a rock and a hard place.

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

Let's not turn this into a "beat up on anyone" situation. I never feel you can get your point across with direct attacks. People should not be attacked (and I do not think that has happened yet but I can see where some might feel attacked) but arguments can be torn apart at your discretion. Alot of good points have been made in this thread along with a few "over-zealous" statements. I myself have no need for hunting weapons or military/tactical/faux GI weapons at all but I would not imit someones ability to own them in any case other than previous criminal history, mental incompetence, or age. Full auto's, pipe bombs, chemical weapons or toxins, or any other forms of "mass death" capable weapons make me think twice and maybe feel differently.

So, who's version of "reasonable" gun control would you accept? Dianne Feinstein's or the VPC/Brady's? I'm quite sure they think they are reasonable. When one realizes this it should be easier to understand why a hard line position needs to be taken.

Reasonable is when people from two different extreme ends of an argument can meet somewhere in-between both stances. I do not see where that is so hard to understand.

PS- Like I said before...I own and wear an Elmer Fudd hat. So to the person saying that was derogatory I say "are you making fun of my Elmer Fudd hat"?

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

Education is the why the anti-gunners are slowly winning.... through liberal education. Just say No..... Tobacco is evil.... guns are evil....it's okay to be gay..... it's okay to have premarital sex, but use birth control.... it's okay to lie because all business is conducted that way.... it's okay to try to cheat on your taxes..... it's okay to try to cheat your insurance company... it's okay to sue at will even if you are in the wrong...insurance companies will just throw you a bone (a bone you didn't have) etc.... No responsibility for anything anymore.

I take it from your inclusion of these items that you have some ideas of these things being evil also since these horrible antis are making these things okay. As a gay man should I suggest you come direct that argument to me? I have very little tolerence for bigotry of any type so it probably would not be the wiseest option. I am hoping I am wrong in this assumption and you will set me straight.

PS- The only people that fear liberal education are the ignorant and the prejudiced since all liberal education teaches is to be open minded and see all aspects of an argument. By all means, let's keep our children ignorant and hateful as long as it means they can still buy a fully auto rifle.

 

[22-rimfire]

Did not say being gay was evil. I said it is not okay. If that is what you choose, then I just don't believe it is okay. I have several cousins who are gay. Some of the most creative people I know are gay. I am tolerant. This is not a suitable topic for this forum... I was just coming up with what I think our society and/or education system generally teaches and tolerance and open mindedness is one of them. Our education system also seems to frown on competition at the elementary and high school level. Then young people are not prepared for the competition that is part of life. Not going to discuss this further.

Bigotry is wrong. It does not require a liberal education to be open minded or to understand there is more than one side to almost any argument. I feel that conservatives see both sides of an argument too; it just depends which side of the fence you are looking from. Buying and shooting fully automatic firearms is cool; you just have to know what is required. There is nothing liberal or conservative about Class III firearms as they are inanimate objects. IED's or other items you previously mentioned are not good for our society if used to hurt people.

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

Then maybe you should have left it out of "your" argument in the first place. Keep your "tolerence" to yourself and leave your hatefullness at home. Discuss the topic of hunters or the side topic of gun rights that has popped into it.

 

[22-rimfire]

You seem to want to pick a fight. I'm not playing, and my "argument" had nothing to do with you.

As an after thought, I thought I would quote your earlier statement playboypenguin ...."Let's not turn this into a "beat up on anyone" situation. I never feel you can get your point across with direct attacks. People should not be attacked (and I do not think that has happened yet but I can see where some might feel attacked) but arguments can be torn apart at your discretion." Hmmm... sounded like an attack to me.

 

[Otherguy Overby]

Reasonable???

Penguin:
Reasonable is when people from two different extreme ends of an argument can meet somewhere in-between both stances. I do not see where that is so hard to understand.

Okay, what if we just sit down with gun control people and keep agreeing to what they find is reasonable? Quite soon we'll be limited to what ALL of us feel is unreasonable. Why is that so hard to understand? That's why compromise is so bad. IOW, if we continue to compromise, we'll have little or nothing left to compromise.

Gun control people are negotiating from a position of nothing to lose. Gun people are negotiating from a position of everything/much to lose. Gun control people aren't giving anything of value to them away. Why do you keep trying to give my NFA "rights" away? They've value to me.

Someone has to start saying NO!

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

Otherguy, you are using the old "slippery slope" argument and that is completely illogical. If I have $2 and I need $1.50 to ride the bus and someone asks me to borrow a quater it is reasonable to give it to him. If he then comes back and asks for $1 then I say "no" because that is more than I can afford to give. The fact that I gave a quarter is irrelevant to the new request since they are seperate inquiries and not tied to each other. The outcome to question A (May I have a quarter?) does not dictate the outcome to question B (May I have another $1.00?). They are seperate and require different logical analysis to determine the answer. One does not set precidence for the other. According to "slippery slope" if I give the quarter I am going to have to give the dollar. That is just not true.

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

22- Rimfire, your statement was an attack on alot of people. I pointed it out and gave you an opportunity to explain if you meant otherwise. I never have attacked you yet. If I had you would know it. You are the one that choose to include this statement, not me. As for liberal education...yes, by definition, you do need to be liberal to be open minded.

liberal
a. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
b. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded

 

[Otherguy Overby]

Otherguy, you are using the old "slippery slope" argument and that is completely illogical. If I have $2 and I need $1.50 to ride the bus and someone asks me to borrow a quater it is reasonable to give it to him. If he then comes back and asks for $1 then I say "no" because that is more than I can afford to give. The fact that I gave a quarter is irrelevant to the new request since they are seperate inquiries and not tied to each other. The outcome to question A (May I have a quarter?) does not dictate the outcome to question B (May I have another $1.00?). They are seperate and require different logical analysis to determine the answer. One does not set precidence for the other. According to "slippery slope" if I give the quarter I am going to have to give the dollar. That is just not true.

Slippery slope, eh? Okay, say I live next door to you. May I use your property to park my motorhome on? Cool, can I put a fence around it, too? How about another space or two for my friends?

Please, before you mention slippery slope again, read this:

http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/slippery.htm

All of it.

 

[22-rimfire]

Playboypenguin: I don't understand why you bring this slippery slope argument at all. I assume you are young, at some point you just say NO. With regard to being reasonable, some just say NO MORE. Few want to compromise in the middle of this argument. It is a net loss for those that are opposed to further restrictions on firearms.

We already have very very strict laws regarding private ownership of Class III weapons. We already have laws regarding manufacturing nerve gas or any other kind of WMD device. Why even bring it up?

Don't see my statement as "an attack on a lot of people". Read it as it pleases you. Maybe the liberal education has allowed conservatives to carefully analyze a problem and find solutions.

 

[NineseveN]

It is neither practical nor logical to have limitless rights.

“Shall not be infringed” is pretty absolute in the Second Amendment whereas the concept that no warrants without probable cause shall be issued unless supported by oath and describing the full scope of the infringement shows where that particular right can be infringed. There’s a difference, all it takes is a little reading and some comprehension.

The fact is there are limits on many rights. Here are some examples:

I always loved this game, I am surprised you did not resort to the “fire in a crowded theater” argument.

First Amendment- There is no mention that free speech must be truthful. Are you saying my free speech includes publishing lies about you and your affairs as truth? What if my lies cause financial hardship, injury or death? I guess it’s too bad for you. It’s my right to say what I want no matter the consequences??? Do corporations have the right to falsely advertise? If it is 100% free speech or nothing. According to nineseven, businesses have the right to falsely advertise.

You have the right to free speech, but your rights end where someone else’s begin. You may not use your rights to commit or otherwise engage in criminal acts or injure others (this includes their reputation). It is not illegal to tell a lie, unless you have engaged in a contract or legally binding agreement to divulge only the truth. But, the simple fact that someone may tell a lie is not cause to restrict people from communicating at all, or from communicating about things that some might lie about or use to injure others or engage in criminal enterprises. You’re comparing apples to oranges here and falling way short of logical. Owning a fully automatic weapon is not infringing on the rights of anyone else, neither is owning a dictionary, possessing a vocabulary or having the means to communicate. You may not use a firearm to threaten someone, intimidate them, coerce them to degrade their own character or the character of others. You may not use speech to threaten someone, intimidate them, coerce them to degrade their own character or the character of others. This is all covered and provided for, there is no true scope to limit the possession of fully-automatic firearms, only their use to infringe on the rights of others or to engage in criminal enterprises, which is where the law stands for all firearms and all manners of inanimate objects, actions and freedoms.

Second Amendment – As the previous posters indicated, I guess we can all own nuclear weapons and missile launchers?

Again, this issue is covered by the founders, I suggest you read up on it.

Fourth Amendment- Technically you should not have an expectation of privacy from the government or anyone else, because privacy is not specifically mentioned, it is implied via the courts. According to nineseven's logic: Wire tapping is ok. Monitoring your financial records is ok. Monitoring your web browsing is ok. Should your employer/wife/ex-wife/insurance company know what web sites you looked at this month?

I have no idea what you’re trying to say here, have you read the Fourth Amendment? :banghead:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

That covers wire tapping and monitoring your financial records. The constitution is a contract between the federal government and the free people of this republic, you knew that, right?

Privacy laws, separate from the constitution cover what private entities (your employer, your neighbor, a stranger) may or may not do in regards to each other and their property (as in employers monitoring your private affairs, and there are some gray areas there, which have just about nothing to do with the Fourth Amendment).

Do you understand one iota about the subject you’re trying to engage in or are you just playing Devil’s Advocate here?

Read up: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment04/

Eighth Amendment- I suppose by nineseven's argument nineseven is against the death penalty and harsh prison sentences. No cruel or unusual punishment, no exceptions.

The term "unusual" has been in debate since the ratifying of the amendment, however, it is well documented that things such as capital punishment do not fit the definition of “unusual” as they had been used throughout our history and had long been considered a regular means of punishing certain crimes. As to whether or not it is “cruel” to kill as a part of the justice system, that has been largely resolved via case law in this country and I cannot say that it is anymore “cruel” than life imprisonment (e.g. having one’s liberty stripped for such a long period of time) and since the death penalty was resolved as a fitting punishment particularly for murder and other crimes of gross malice, I find little trouble in accepting the decision that case law has provided; which is that capital punishment is neither cruel nor unusual when it fits the severity of the crime (e.g. homicide). Under your logic here, long periods of incarceration might as well be abolished as well as depriving one of the liberty bestowed upon them at their creation is certainly cruel, perhaps not unusual, but definitely cruel if we ignore the entire concept of our justice system and the intent of the Eight Amendment.

Have fun reading: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment08/03.html#1

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment08/05.html#1

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment08/06.html#1

If we allow these rights to go unfettered our society would implode. That is why we have a balance of power and our government is of the people to find that balance between rights of the individual and the good of society as a whole.

The rights of the individual are supposed to come first, which is the concept behind the Bill of Rights. The BoR is for the people to have a standard to keep the government to where the rights of the free people of this republic come first, if a federal law violates our rights, it is unconstitutional no matter what the “good of society” says. You have a very poor understanding of the subject matter at hand, which is where I think this disagreement comes from. However, neither your parents’ tax money, nor your money subsidizes my paycheck, so hopefully the links I have provided and perhaps some desire to learn more will drive you to educate yourself, I’m not about to spend my free time doing it for you. Good luck in your intellectual travels.

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

Otherguy, read this
" A slippery slope fallacy is an argument that says adopting one policy or taking one action will lead to a series of other policies or actions also being taken, without showing a causal connection between the advocated policy and the consequent policies. A popular example of the slippery slope fallacy is, "If we legalize marijuana, the next thing you know we'll legalize heroin, LSD, and crack cocaine." This slippery slope is a form of non sequitur, because no reason has been provided for why legalization of one thing leads to legalization of another. Tobacco and alcohol are currently legal, and yet other drugs have somehow remained illegal"
That is directly from the same site. It goes to show that "slippery slope" is only logical when there is a set correlation between two differnt outcomes. In the case of gun control that is not the case. In cases such as land use like you stated above their are already laws regarding usage and perceived rights. Therefore there "is" a direct correlation and it is not truly a "slippery slope" argument. You have to pay attention to the subtle differences.

 

[NineseveN]

Otherguy, you are using the old "slippery slope" argument and that is completely illogical. If I have $2 and I need $1.50 to ride the bus and someone asks me to borrow a quater it is reasonable to give it to him. If he then comes back and asks for $1 then I say "no" because that is more than I can afford to give. The fact that I gave a quarter is irrelevant to the new request since they are seperate inquiries and not tied to each other. The outcome to question A (May I have a quarter?) does not dictate the outcome to question B (May I have another $1.00?). They are seperate and require different logical analysis to determine the answer. One does not set precidence for the other. According to "slippery slope" if I give the quarter I am going to have to give the dollar. That is just not true.

Apples to oranges. We're not talking about the government or the anti's asking to have one of our guns, or some of our ammo, we're talking about them taking the right to own them or certain types of them at all.

A more correct analogy is:

If I make $20,000 a year and the government states that I am not allowed to make over $10,000 a year, is it reasonable to compromise and ask for the right to make $11,000 a year?

It's wrong in the first place no matter what the amount the government is taking away from you because the government has no right or legal basis to limit or restrict who makes what in what market doing what profession. That's how the Communists operate, we're not Communists…well, most of us anyway.

It's not about a slippery slope, it's wrong in the first place, the so-called slope is a 270-degree angle, hence not a slope at all.

 

[Otherguy Overby]

Penguin:
" A slippery slope fallacy is an argument that says adopting one policy or taking one action will lead to a series of other policies or actions also being taken, <snip>

You didn't bother to follow the link I posted to Volokh's "slippery slope" paper, did you.

Oh well, and here I thought you were here to participate and learn.

 

[NineseveN]

Otherguy, I followed the link, I actually enoyed it. I didn't feel that it directly related to my stance on the matter, but it is an excellent read none the less. I bookmarked it as I had never read that one.

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

Otherguy, I did not repost any of your information since it was already avalable. I just posted information I found that I felt was relevant to the discussion. There HAS to be correlation for even the vaguest form of "slippery slope" to be valid. Gun laws do not fall into that catagory. And by definition, is there IS correlation the argument is not truely a slippery slope one but instead an argument of relevant causation. As for gun laws, I have not suggested they should be stronger. I feel that in many cases they are TOO strong as they stand now. Unfortunetly I feel things are probably only going to get worse. I have stated that the only restrictions I definately support are restriction of violent felons, minors, and the mentally incompetent. I do have reservations about weapons of potential "mass destruction" such as bombs, chemicals, and full autos but have no hard set ideas about what their roles should be and what limits should be placed on them. If this makes me a threat to RKBA then I am afraid it is a doomed movement because you will never be able to win over the average Joe without such safegaurds. As for the 2nd amendment, the constitution is and was meant to be a fluid document. That is why there are "amendments" at all. If things get bad it can be taken away completely and then where would your argument be if that is all you use for your base.

 

[Otherguy Overby]

Penguin:
Otherguy, I did not repost any of your information since it was already avalable. I just posted information I found that I felt was relevant to the discussion. There HAS to be correlation for even the vaguest form of "slippery slope" to be valid. Gun laws do not fall into that catagory. And by definition, is there IS correlation the argument is not truely a slippery slope one but instead an argument of relevant causation.

Okay, since you can't be bothered to actually read Volokh's article, I'll skip ahead and post the conclusion:

Volokh on Slippery Slope:
The slippery slope is in some ways a helpful metaphor, but as with many metaphors, it starts by enriching our vision and ends by clouding it.[315] We need to go beyond the metaphor, and examine the specific mechanisms that cause the phenomenon that the metaphor describes—mechanisms that connect to the nature of our political institutions, our judicial process, and possibly even human reasoning. These mechanisms and their effects deserve further study, even if paying attention to them will make policy analysis more complex. So long as our support of one political or legal decision today can lead to other results tomorrow, wise judges, legislators, opinion leaders, interest group organizers, and citizens have to take these mechanisms into account.

Which leads me to believe that one of the finer legal minds of our time also believes in a "Slippery Slope". Why don't you? And most especially when it comes to gun control...

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

Otherguy, I did read it. And I guess I took something different from it then you apparently have taken. It says it is a helpful metaphor. It says that it can affect thinking, but it never says it is a valid concrete argument. In fact it says otherwise in a few different ways such as talking about correlation. I know that in court "slippery slope" arguments are not admissable in most cases. We could not say "she molested her first child,therefor she will molest her second child also" without showing reason beyond that type of thinking. They are also a quick way to get an "F" in almost any formal debate class.

metaphor
A figure of speech in which a word or phrase that ordinarily designates one thing is used to designate another, thus making an implicit comparison, as in “a sea of troubles” or “All the world's a stage” (Shakespeare)

By using the term metaphor it is saying that the argument itself is not relavant but can be used as a representation of more subtle and truer arguments.

Now lets get back to topic before a thread that has had some good posts gets closed. Although I would like to point out that this is an example of how two people (me and that other guy who is wrong ) can disagree without name calling or hatefullness which is kind of relevant to one aspect of the thread.

No, I am not a lawyer. I was a mental health professional with CPS and testified often and we were made clear on the fact that these type arguments were not relevant.

 

[stevelyn]

dakotsin and 'Card

I wasn't trying to offend you or hunters by my remarks. I was merely pointing out that the RKBA is an all or nothing proposition regardless of what your firearms interests are.

Don't think for a minute that banning firearms of one type doesn't set the stage and precedent for banning another because it does. How the hell do you think the went from handguns to "assault weapons" to .50 calibers?
All that's needed now is to define scoped hunting/varmint rifles as sniper rifles and we'll all be in a world of $^!t.

Look at the states that have bans on certain types of firearms. They had to start somewhere. Some started with handguns, others started with "assault weapons" others are using consumer safety initiatives to further their agenda. Either way the results are the same.......the dominoes start falling.
If you can justify banning one it's easy to justify banning another.

There shouldn't be any compromise from any quarter when it comes to defending the RKBA. Hunters have as deep seated interest in the RKBA as anyone.

 

[MinMAN]

Very nicely said Stevelyn, and PayboyPenguin! ROFL!

Hi!,I'm MinMAN!

 

[Soybomb]

Well I briefly skimmed the thread, but no I don't believe it has an impact on it. People who identify as hunters only seem to be generally concerned only about hunting firearms. The call of the gun grabber is "we don't want your hunting guns" afterall. If anything you could probably sell me more on people who only have guns to hunt doing more to hurt than help. I've heard countless people like that talk about assault weapons... After a while that becomes representative of gun owners. I'd actually love it if more people didn't have the fact they have a ccl from their friends and family. I think it'd be good if gun owners weren't just people who drive their chevy truck to the woods and sit in a deer stand, but also their lawyer, accountant, sister and other diverse people using guns for protection.

Fwiw: I've never been hunting, my dad hasn't either. I'm not even sure if his dad did, and where we live thats probably somewhat uncommon. Personally I have no interest in it. I'll trim down a bigger chunk of cow to smaller pieces, or filet a fish, but if I have to my hands in it when its warm I'll just eat a salad.

 

[Marshall]

I don't hunt but I do have an Elmer Fudd hat. I bought at the WB store years ago. I look very cool in it. (at least I think so)

PS- Like I said before...I own and wear an Elmer Fudd hat. So to the person saying that was derogatory I say "are you making fun of my Elmer Fudd hat"?

Sure sounds like a feeble attempt to make fun of hunters. If that's not so, I apologize.

 

[MinMAN]

Quote:
I don't hunt but I do have an Elmer Fudd hat. I bought at the WB store years ago. I look very cool in it. (at least I think so)



Quote:
PS- Like I said before...I own and wear an Elmer Fudd hat. So to the person saying that was derogatory I say "are you making fun of my Elmer Fudd hat"?

Sure sounds like a feeble attempt to make fun of hunters. If that's not so, I apologize.
__________________
Marshall

It just made me want to put my "Elmer Fudd hat" on. I wasn't insulted. The plaid coat thing was a little disturbing, since hardly anyone wears those anymore.