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

"Hunting" and RKBA.....

Discussion in 'Legal' started by fallingblock, Aug 11, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. fallingblock

    fallingblock Member

    Dec 26, 2002
    Between Georgia and Antarctica
    The Australian experience certainly demonstrates the end game of linking firearms ownership to "justification" such as hunting:

    Duck and Quail Hunting

    Hon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central-ALP) (Premier and Treasurer) (10.06.05)
    (am): I want to join with the minister for the environment and advise that there will be no more duck and quail hunting in Queensland. It is time to ban this recreational shooting of ducks and quail. This is not an appropriate activity in contemporary life in the Smart State. For example, in 1984 there were more than 1,800 licensed hunters and in 2004 there were just 376. Conversely, the environment minister has received more than 700 representations this year on the issue with all but 15 seeking to have duck and quail hunting banned. Community concern combined with declining bird numbers, diminishing wetlands and the effects of the drought mean it is time to act, and act we will.
    State cabinet has agreed the Nature Conservation (Duck and Quail) Conservation Plan 1995, which manages the hunting of ducks and quails, will not be remade when it expires in September. There has been community concern that shooting ducks and quail with shotgun pellets while they are flying is cruel because the birds are often wounded instead of being killed instantly. The RSPCA has suggested that as many as 90 per cent of ducks shot suffer a cruel, slow death.

    The "Smart State" indeed! :banghead:
  2. GEM

    GEM Member

    Apr 11, 2004
    I've studies the Australian situation a bit and had the opportunity to talk with a progun scholar who lived in Australia.

    The Australian gun world for the most part tried to defend their gun ownership as being a 'sport' as Australians are rabid sports fans. They didn't make the case of a right for protection and defense against tyranny.

    The sport argument had no power and failed.

    Hunting is a trival aspect of the RKBA. Note it used by antis to pretend they support it. You usually see support based on some elitist birdie hunt.

    Kerry, Bush, Clinton, Ann Richards and others go afield with an O/U and shoot Tweetie. They then all proclaim they are not against the 'sportsperson'.

    I won't believe a progunner politician till I see them at an IDPA, IPSC or similar event and them saying that the RKBA is not about hunting at all.
  3. geekWithA.45

    geekWithA.45 Moderator Emeritus

    Jan 1, 2003
    SouthEast PA
    I've always expressed it as a variant of

    "The significant and fundamental right of arms is not dependent on our relatively trivial right to amuse ourselves by sport shooting."
  4. Standing Wolf

    Standing Wolf Member in memoriam

    Dec 24, 2002
    Idahohoho, the jolliest state
    Well said!
  5. GunGoBoom

    GunGoBoom member

    Aug 4, 2004
    Wouldn't that be something? To see a POTUS candidate at an IDPA shoot - he'd get my vote from then on for sure!

    Yap, it's a losing argument to claim guns are for "sport", "hunting". We must not be timid. We must tell it like it is or lose in the long run. The RKBA sure as heck IS about killing PEOPLE. People that need to be killed, such as an invading force, a tyrant and his military, and violent criminal aggressors.
  6. cuchulainn

    cuchulainn Member

    Dec 24, 2002
    Looking for a cow that Queen Meadhbh stole
    Our real goal should be to turn the current situation on its head. Now, we often justify our guns. Even when we're claiming self-defense and anti-tyranny reasons, we're often on the defensive, using those reasons as justifications for why we should be left alone.

    It would be so much better if those who would ban guns needed to justify their desires (as if we'd accept their reasons ;) ). But as it is, we often accept their implicit challenge to justify why we should keep our guns. We shouldn't bear the burden of proof, but we readily accept it. The burden of proof ought to be on them.

    What I'd like to see in a politician is one who puts the antis through a harsh and nearly-impossible-to-satisfy series of "prove it!" questions. Like a series of defensive walls leading to the inner keep of a castle or city (Minas Tirith?) our RKBA ought to be protected by a series of gate-keeper demands and questions.

    If you construct enough questions and demands, you'll find that it would be all but impossible to justify gun control laws. We'd be left with a tiny handful of truly "reasonable gun controls" -- disarming crazed people, disarming people while under legal incarceration and so on.

    Such questions would be: Is the problem truly caused by access to guns? Will this proposal truly help the problem? Even so, does this solution hurt innocent people (law abiding gun owners)? Is this the least onerous way to address the problem? Is this the most-fair way to address it? … and on and on and on to the final citadel of: Will it violate a fundamental right?

    As it is, we're often stuck proving why we should be allowed to keep the Nazgul and Orcs on the other side of the gate.
  7. fallingblock

    fallingblock Member

    Dec 26, 2002
    Between Georgia and Antarctica
    Cuchulainn, that proposal would turn I.A.N.S.A. inside-out...

    Wouldn't it be grand to see Rebecca Peters trying to justify her position? :D

    Our RKBA as ennumerated in the Second Amendment is such an alien concept to politicians around the world that they gasp in disbelief when an attempt is made to explain it, let alone promote such a potentially
    "government unfriendly" idea. :eek:

    I think it's also worth noting, As GEM points out, that the spirit of compromise and concession (as exemplified by the "sport" defense) from Australian gunowners, and hunters in particular, has backfired dramatically on them. I've marked in bold a few comments ehich indicate that the RSPCA is certain that even 'sport' hunting ought to disappear.


    DAVID DOWSETT: Well, if you're a hunter you'll probably cry this
    morning, 'cause the State Government has slapped a blanket ban on all
    duck and quail hunting for environmental and animal cruelty reasons.
    RSPCA CEO Mark Townsend [sic], good morning.
    MARK TOWNEND: Good morning, David.
    DOWSETT: Mark Townend rather. Sorry about that.
    TOWNEND: That's all right. I get called lots of names. [Laughs]
    DOWSETT: OK. So I presume you're not crying; you're probably
    celebrating aren't you?
    TOWNEND: Oh I think it's good for us, but particularly for the
    birdlife that's going to be saved, and some horrific deaths otherwise.
    Hunting for a sport we see as a real problem. There's no problem with
    culling if it's done professionally, if you need to for conservation or
    environmental reasons, but particularly with droughts in Queensland
    over the last few years we just could not understand why people were
    approving, in government, the hunting, for sport, of wildlife.
    DOWSETT: Yeah. There are nowhere near as many shooters now as
    there used to be, so is this ban really necessary?
    TOWNEND: Well, it's pretty necessary if animals get killed in a
    cruel way. If you're going to get shot out of the air and get left
    there suffering for a long time in a cruel way, there's no real need
    for it, why do we do it for a sport in 2005? And maybe that's a sign of
    the times: maybe people are realising there's better pastimes than shooting
    animals and being cruel about it.
    DOWSETT: It's been a long campaign hasn't it? It's really taken
    a while for Queensland to follow suit on this one.
    TOWNEND: Yeah. Well, obviously it has taken a while. But I
    think we've seen the light and now we've joined the majority of
    Australia and banned hunting of ducks and quail. And, as I say,
    there's always a possibility, for mitigation purposes, that the Department of
    Environment will approve; where there is an issue for farmers and that
    that can still be dealt with but in a professional manner. What RSPCA
    is against is hunting for sport. We don't think in 2005 that's a good
    DOWSETT: Is this just another step in the campaign to stop duck
    shooting in the whole of Australia?
    TOWNEND: I think so. Yes, I think so. Look, RSPCA and certainly
    animal welfare groups and, we think, the general populus-- Like you
    say, there has been a decline in hunters. There's only 376 compared to,
    like, 1800, just under 2000, in 1984, so I think you'll find that
    people are taking on other pastimes because it's seen as being cruel, there's
    better things to do.
    DOWSETT: Do you think, though, that this might just lead to a lot
    more duck shooters hunting illegally?
    TOWNEND: Well, if they want to break the law they'll have to
    suffer the consequences. The law's there to make sure you apply [sic]
    to it and we hope that those people are professional in their approach
    and they accept the law. A lot of law's changing; governments',
    community attitudes change. And I think that's what's happened here:
    the community attitude's changed, that's represented by the Government,
    they've changed the laws accordingly.
    DOWSETT: So duck and quail are now on the list of banned hunting.
    What would you like to ban next?
    TOWNEND: Well, that's basically the main problem here in
    Queensland - duck and quail. Certainly we think there should be huge
    amounts of money spent by Federal and State Government on eradication,
    by professional people, of pigs and some of the other feral animals in
    Australia to protect the wildlife, but we just don't want to see
    hunting for sport. We think the sport sometimes-- not all huntsmen but quite a few of them can obviously not be as professional as they should be and
    you'll find the animals die a cruel death. And that's what we're
    concerned about.

    DOWSETT: So the eventual goal is an outright ban on all sport
    hunting right across the board?
    TOWNEND: On sport hunting, yes. We don't believe-- Our policy
    certainly is there's no need for sport hunting anywhere else in
    And if there's need for culls they should be done by
    professionals and done so they're a quick, clean death and that way you
    protect the environment.
    DOWSETT: Mark Townend, thanks very much.
    TOWNEND: Thanks, David.
    DOWSETT: RSPCA CEO Mark Townend there.....
  8. boofus

    boofus Guest

    Does VP Cheney's machinegun collection count? :p
  9. hifi

    hifi member

    May 28, 2005
    The key is not shifting the debate away from sporting, but the fact that we are "defending" in and of itself. Until we go on the offensive we will continue to lose our rights until there are none left.

    That's just a cold hard fact, like it or not.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page