Real predator control would shoot hunters

[Alonzo]

What is this mysterious group calling itself Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife, Alaska chapter?

What is their answer to the lack of moose in Game Management Unit 16B? (This is the area north and west of Cook Inlet roughly to Denali - a prime area for Anchorage hunters.)

Ralph Seekins, ex-state senator from Fairbanks and a founder, says they're applying predator control. They're supported by another group called Sportsmen for Habitat.

Frankly, this entire scheme sounds like something dreamed up by a group to the radical left of PETA. Think of the great national and even worldwide publicity: Alaska, where they kill wolves and bears with aerial hunting.

The idea is to use several hundred hunters to wipe out 60 percent of the black bear population, estimated at 1,900, in the area. They will go out in force to bait the bears using dog carcasses, etc., and kill all they find, including cubs and mothers with cubs.

This is sportsmanship? While skulls and hides must be salvaged, the meat can be left.

Have any of these people ever heard of wanton waste? Fair chase? Hunting ethics in general? Why hasn't the Department of Fish and Game shut down moose hunting in the area?

I can hear the campfire talk now. Lots of laughter and awe as the Great White Hunters recount their day's triumph.

"Yeah, that mother was trying to protect her cubs. She was coming at me, but my good ol' Winchester stopped her in her tracks. The cubs just took a couple of shots."

Yep, nothing like the real sportsmen out for a good time. The whole idea makes real Alaskans sick.

Here's an idea - real predator control would shoot the hunters.

Dee Longenbaugh

Juneau

http://www.juneauempire.com/stories/032808/let_262630755.shtml

So you have a dwindling population of moose, and you allow moose hunting. So, instead of banning moose hunting, you're going to use dead dogs and other animals to catch, and then kill, up to 60% of the black bear population?

They also had another genius program in Alaska to save Moose, one that, again, did not involve ending Moose hunting. It involved shooting wolves from planes, and it kill 124 wolves:

Pilot-gunner teams have taken 124 wolves to date, according to Bruce Bartley, spokesman for the Alaska Division of Wildlife Conservation.........

Aerial wolf control in Alaska remains highly controversial. Citizen efforts to stop it continue. Alaska voters have twice approved initiatives to stop the hunts, and another is slated to go on the ballot later this year.

http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/story/410461.html

And if you want the number of moose that could be saved by ending hunting:

Moose are the most sought after big game animal in Alaska. Hunters report harvesting over 7,000 of Alaska's estimated 175,000 moose each year. Going out to “get a moose” is a fall ritual for tens of thousands of Alaskans.

http://www.wildlife.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=hunting.moose

Hunting: Alaskan hunters shoot about 22,000 caribou each year for food. A few thousand other hunters, primarily from the lower 48 states, Europe, and Mexico, travel to Alaska to experience caribou hunting each fall.

http://www.adfg.state.ak.us/pubs/notebook/biggame/caribou.php

Those same wildlife official are happy to have this instead:

State wildlife officials believe they have saved more than 1,400 moose or nearly 3,000 caribou -- or some combination thereof -- with a winter program to kill wolves from aircraft

http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/story/410461.html

Dumbasses.

[davo]

Everywhere on the planet the same trick is used; I know becuase exactly the same trick has been used here in Australia. Common game animals that have been hunted by generations are now suddenly critically endangered and need to be protected from hunting for a season. The next year its the same becuase apparently the numbers haven't 'fully recovered'. Then it becomes an animal rights issue once its fully embeded in the public's mind, but the numbers have recovered. Then hunting seasons are cancelled altogether. Then the government takes the people's guns because they don't 'need' them anymore.

[Alonzo]

I can go either way on the guns, but the rest of that sounds perfect!

How can we get politicians to implement that in the u.s.?

[micfranklin]

I was always aware that the natural course would sort itself out rather than humanity intervene.

[Osborn F. Enready]

Alonzo said:
I can go either way on the guns, but the rest of that sounds perfect!

How can we get politicians to implement that in the u.s.?


Exactly why we are polar opposite on many issues.

Some of us value freedom and being able to eat meat.

[Alonzo]

Exactly why we are polar opposite on many issues.

Some of us value freedom and being able to eat meat.

So if someone kills stray dogs, or their own dog, for sport, that should be perfectly legal?

[Osborn F. Enready]

I am not pro-animal cruelty.

I am compassionate towards animals.

I am obviously pro-2nd amendment and recognizing individual firearms ownership rights.

That being said, I am also not pro-sport hunting, though I fully support hunting for food and for animal culling and population control purposes. Stray dogs can be a dangerous and troublesome nuisance to humans, which is why I wouldn't have an issue with the shooting of stray dogs that present that threat.

[Alonzo]

But if they're not a nuisance or threatening you don't think that should be legal, right? If a little chihuaha, completely unaggressive, is running around the woods, lost and looking for food and shelter, should I have the right to shoot it because it's fun?

What if it's my chihuaha? I've had it for a few years but decide that I don't like him anymore so I put him in the yard and think it would be "fun" to see if I can hit him with a rifle. Should that be legal?

[Truth_and_Power]

Probably the best thing they could do for wildlife is to bulldoze the roads. But then the anti-hunting liberals couldn't get inland far enough to take scenic pictures.

[Osborn F. Enready]

Alonzo said:
But if they're not a nuisance or threatening you don't think that should be legal, right? If a little chihuaha, completely unaggressive, is running around the woods, lost and looking for food and shelter, should I have the right to shoot it because it's fun?

Its not legal, its called animal cruelty.

Alonzo said:
What if it's my chihuaha? I've had it for a few years but decide that I don't like him anymore so I put him in the yard and think it would be "fun" to see if I can hit him with a rifle. Should that be legal?

It shouldn't be illegal. Owners have a right to put down their pets if they deem it necessary, but in the "dreamed up" scenario you put forth, anyone that saw it and would testify could make a case of animal cruelty.

[Alonzo]

And what's the distinction between shooting one animal for fun vs shooting another animal for fun? If I shoot a dog or cat why should that be illegal but shooting a deer or wolf legal?

[Osborn F. Enready]

Alonzo said:
And what's the distinction between shooting one animal for fun vs shooting another animal for fun? If I shoot a dog or cat why should that be illegal but shooting a deer or wolf legal?

Are you reading my posts Alonzo?

What didn't you understand about me stating that I don't support sport hunting?

I support hunting for food, and population control.

Are you going to debate me, or the scary evil picture of me you hold in your mind which is entirely fabricated?

[Alonzo]

So sport hunting should be illegal then and charged as animal cruelty? I asked you about pets before, not normal wild animals.

[Cobra]

Lots of people hunt for the sport and also eat the animals they kill. Hunting’s fine by me, no different then raising animals to slaughter for food. I like meat, just not most wild game meat, my brother and cousins can have their deer, squirrel, rabbit, turkey, duck, frog.

[Osborn F. Enready]

Alonzo said:
So sport hunting should be illegal then and charged as animal cruelty?

Did I say that? No. I said I DON'T SUPPORT SPORT HUNTING, which is a far cry from me trying to get government to use force to prevent it.

As far as pets, people have a right to put their own pets down when they deem it necessary. Pets are property, and people have a right to OWN property. Does that mean they have the RIGHT to be cruel and inhumane towards animals? No. It does however mean they have the right to put down, or exterminate animals who are pets, when THEY deem it necessary if done with as little pain as possible to the pet.

Alonzo said:
I asked you about pets before, not normal wild animals.

And if you re-read, you will see I answered your question.

[Alonzo]

As far as pets, people have a right to put their own pets down when they deem it necessary. Pets are property, and people have a right to OWN property. Does that mean they have the RIGHT to be cruel and inhumane towards animals? No. It does however mean they have the right to put down, or exterminate animals who are pets, when THEY deem it necessary if done with as little pain as possible to the pet.

So you don't support sport hunting, but don't think it should be illegal due to animal cruelty laws.

Do you think cruelty to dogs should be illegal? And is trying to shoot my dog running through the woods, a way that is naturally inaccurate and may cause additional pain than a close shooting, and for no reason other than it's "fun", cruelty that should be illegal?

[Osborn F. Enready]

Just admit it Alonzo, you want to outlaw everything, and make people appeal to the state with a request to do anything.

It seems obvious your fascination with politics is about how you can best use government force to affect others negatively, yet affect yourself positively.

I am not going to sit here and play semantic games with you all day, I have stated clearly my position, and you keep trying to frame arguments from fiction that will in your mind pigeonhole me in some way......

Its pretty obvious that the more Animal Rights activists can paint people as illogical, the easier it will be for them to pass animal rights equal to human rights, which is really your goal, isn't it?

[Alonzo]

Osborn, you're not clear on animal cruelty. Should any form of animal cruelty be illegal?

It seems obvious your fascination with politics is about how you can best use government force to affect others negatively, yet affect yourself positively.

Umm... how is protecting something from harm fitting with that? You're saying that harming animals should be legal because people feel like doing it, but I'm not sure of how many animals willingly say "shoot me".

[Osborn F. Enready]

Alonzo said:
Osborn, you're not clear on animal cruelty. Should any form of animal cruelty be illegal?

I was quite clear. No form of cruelty should be legal without good reason, such as animal testing of products before products are tested on people.

I don't support any form of purposeless cruelty.

Sport hunting is not CRUEL unless it causes the animal undue pain and suffering.

Alonzo said:
Umm... how is protecting something from harm fitting with that?

Your trying to protect my food from harm, and whats even worse, trying to equate it as equal to humans.

Alonzo said:
You're saying that harming animals should be legal because people feel like doing it, but I'm not sure of how many animals willingly say "shoot me".

Animals don't willingly or unwillingly say anything, since they can't talk except in cartoons.

[Alonzo]

I was quite clear. No form of cruelty should be legal without good reason, such as animal testing of products before products are tested on people.

I don't support any form of purposeless cruelty.

Sport hunting is not CRUEL unless it causes the animal undue pain and suffering.

But animals can run long distances after being shot, and if they're not shot perfectly they feel pain for a significant period of time until the hunter shoots them properly. Is that not undue pain and suffering?


Animals don't willingly or unwillingly say anything, since they can't talk except in cartoons.

Certain primates can communicate with humans through sign language, and certain parrots can be taught to communicate with humans. Look up "alex", a parrot that was researched for years and has plenty of youtube videos. He could communicate through verbal language. So that's not true.

[Cobra]

sign language is not talking, parrots talking is pretty cool to hear tho. My grandmother used to have a talking parrot.

[Alonzo]

Cobra, so all those people who communicate through sign language are doing what? Are people who sign someone of lesser intelligence or awareness than those who can talk verbally?

Are you and Osborn going to argue that talking, or ability to use some form of human language, magically causes awareness? Animals can and do communicate, both verbally and non verbally. Some animals can use human language even.

And even in terms of awareness and intelligence, Elephants lack the biological ability to use verbal or human sign language, but they are more intelligent than the birds who can clearly use and communicate through human verbal language. I think most of us would recognize that an elephant has a higher intelligence than a parrot, yet one can communicate verbally what it wants and one cannot.

[Cobra]

Really can't say I care much about the animal's intelligence level. An animal is an animal and in a different class then humans even unintelligent or handicapped human IMO. Pigs are pretty intelligent some say as intelligent as a dog, we eat pigs.

[Alonzo]

Pigs are smarter than dogs, dogs are intelligent but there's a lot of smarter animals.

An animal is an animal and in a different class then humans

Based on what? What makes them a different class? There's nothing truly unique that is innate to humans, it's simply a matter of degrees. In some areas we are more capable than other animals, in other areas other animals are more capable than us.

[Cobra]

Based on what? What makes them a different class?
Being a part of my species. I'd even choose your life over a chickens zo no matter how much we disagree. Too bad none of those animals with their abilities can argue their own case on a message board or are even aware or apprecietive of you doing it for them.

[Alonzo]

Being a part of my species.

The problem is that that doesn't answer the "why does one deserve rights and the other doesn't" question for a lot of people. Barring a belief that humans are special solely by virtue of being human, I don't see the logic behind that argument. It seems to appeal more towards the emotional side of humans.

I'd even choose your life over a chickens zo no matter how much we disagree. Too bad none of those animals with their abilities can argue their own case on a message board or are even aware or apprecietive of you doing it for them.

Neither can a developmentally disabled adult with the cognitive capacity of a three year old, yet we don't allow people to harm them or deny them of basic rights such as safety, food etc.

[Osborn F. Enready]

Alonzo said:
But animals can run long distances after being shot, and if they're not shot perfectly they feel pain for a significant period of time until the hunter shoots them properly. Is that not undue pain and suffering?

No, its quite due suffering, based on the history of, and modern limitations of hunting.

It is not UNDUE, nor its CRUEL or UNUSUAL. Its quite usual for hunting, though not optimal, and it not nearly as cruel as letting them starve to death by overpopulation.

Alonzo said:
Certain primates can communicate with humans through sign language, and certain parrots can be taught to communicate with humans. Look up "alex", a parrot that was researched for years and has plenty of youtube videos. He could communicate through verbal language. So that's not true.

IT is obviously true in almost all cases, with FEW EXCEPTIONS after being taught, coached and coerced by humans..... nothing to do with natural.

[Cobra]

It is not UNDUE, nor its CRUEL or UNUSUAL. Its quite usual for hunting, though not optimal, and it not nearly as cruel as letting them starve to death by overpopulation.
It's a lot less crual than how most of the animal world kills it's prey. Ever watched wolves or lions hunt on animal planet. Being shot sounds a lot nicer then mauled and dragged till dead.

[Osborn F. Enready]

I agree Cobra, but logic has little to do with this from Alonzos standpoint.

Never mind that an animal can't recognize or conceive the idea of rights, he still thinks they should get them.

I am not trying to insult Alonzo here either, but it is plain that is the goal regardless of any possible consequences.

[Alonzo]

No, its quite due suffering, based on the history of, and modern limitations of hunting.

It is not UNDUE, nor its CRUEL or UNUSUAL. Its quite usual for hunting, though not optimal, and it not nearly as cruel as letting them starve to death by overpopulation.

Could modern hunting then be considered inherently cruel?

But, as for the alternative, simply look at the case I pointed in the OP. They are killing wolves to increase moose and caribou population, and the program to do so killed saved "saved more than 1,400 moose or nearly 3,000 caribou -- or some combination thereof", while hunting of moose kills 7,000 and hunting of carbiou kills 22,000. With dwindling populations, which is the bigger problem?

Reintroduction of natural predator species is far more effective. Not only do they keep populations in check, but they benefit the long term survival of the species by killing the weaker among them, therefore ensuring the healthier and fitter ones reproduce. Hunters often do the opposite, spare the weakest and kill the healthiest. Guarantee you that a lot of hunters would take pity on, and spare, a deer with a limp. But that's not good for the long term prospects of the species.


IT is obviously true in almost all cases, with FEW EXCEPTIONS after being taught, coached and coerced by humans..... nothing to do with natural.

So you believe that teaching human language to animals magically creates intelligence? A parrot and an elephant are good examples, when properly taught the parrot can use human language, but which species has greater cognitive capabilities?

There's also the limit to what humans understand. Other animals do have complex communication systems. Dolphins, for instance, have names for individual dolphins (link (http://www.livescience.com/animals/060508_dolphin_names.html))
that is consistent throughout their life, and these names are recognized regardless of the voice using them. Current estimates of their communication suggest there's at least hundreds of different calls they use, and in both whales and dolphins, we know that there communication system is different based on the regions and groups they live in. It's not universal for the species. A minority of researchers have gone so far as to use the term "language", at least a basic language, particularly with dolphins.

And with elephants researchers also know of a large amount of communications:

For 27 years she has lived among savanna elephants in Kenya's Amboseli National Park studying their behavior and methods of communication. Poole has found that the elephants use more than 70 kinds of vocal sounds and 160 different visual and tactile signals, expressions, and gestures in their day-to-day interactions.

Like humans and many other mammals, she explained, the elephants have a wide range of calls and signals for different purposes—to secure their defense, warn others of danger, coordinate group movements, reconcile differences, attract mates, reinforce family bonds, and announce their needs and desires.

Distinctive expressions of joy, anger, sympathy, sexual desire, playfulness, and many other emotions are among their vocal repertoire.

Poole and others have found that the elephants not only trumpet their calls but squeal, cry, scream, roar, snort, rumble, and groan. ....

One of the calls identified so far is what Poole describes as the "let's go" rumble, which is used to suggest "I want to go in this direction—let's go together." A drawn-out rumbling, it lasts about five to six seconds and is usually repeated about every 80 seconds or so until the caller gets results.

Another is the "contact call." An elephant calling for a distant family member emits a powerful reverberating sound and then lifts its head and spreads its ears listening for an answer. If it receives one, it responds with an explosive sound.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/02/0221_030221_elephantvocal1.html

The cognitive capacity to make a choice or have wants is there for a large amount of animals, their ability to say that in a form of human language doesn't change that, it simply makes it easier for humans to be aware of it.

[Osborn F. Enready]

Alonzo said:
Could modern hunting then be considered inherently cruel?

No, except to vegans, pacifists, and animal rights activists.

As Cobra said, hunting is quite a step up from being eaten by one of their predators who would kill them with claw, teeth, etc.

Alonzo said:
With dwindling populations, which is the bigger problem?

They can both be used to affect desired results, but the species of wildlife and the type of enviroment we have are not guaranteed, not forever nor is it possible to prevent natural changes in the system beyond a certain degree.

You and I have different goals here Al, so its obvious we have different means and methods as viable.

Alonzo said:
So you believe that teaching human language to animals magically creates intelligence?

Nope.

Alonzo said:
A parrot and an elephant are good examples, when properly taught the parrot can use human language, but which species has greater cognitive capabilities?

Really doesn't matter to me. If I am hungry, and they are there to kill, they will become dinner. They are no match for humans, and that being the case, they fall second or lower in the food chain to humans. In case you haven't noticed, all of nature is a food chain, and we too are in it, just at the top.

[Alonzo]

They can both be used to affect desired results, but the species of wildlife and the type of enviroment we have are not guaranteed, not forever nor is it possible to prevent natural changes in the system beyond a certain degree.

You and I have different goals here Al, so its obvious we have different means and methods as viable.

Natural changes in the system have, throughout earths history, worked themselves out. We are not introducing natural changes. In this case we are going so far as to allow massive hunting and, when a problem in the moose and caribou population results, we go after the natural control mechanism instead of hunting. It's a utterly ridiculous fix for the problem, cruel or not. We are choosing to preserve an unnatural method of population control while reducing the strength of the natural one.

The natural one is also better as it eliminates the weaker animals in the population. It's not just a numbers game to wolves and other predators, it's also about catching the easiest prey. That also happens to be the least beneficial animals to the long term survival of the population. A strong, virile adult male is the most beneficial animal for these species, and they're the last thing a predator would go after. At the same time it's also a prized trophy to many hunters.

No, except to vegans, pacifists, and animal rights activists.

So no, except to people who disagree with you. Convincing!

As Cobra said, hunting is quite a step up from being eaten by one of their predators who would kill them with claw, teeth, etc.

Hunting can be a step up or a step down in terms of cruelty for the individual animal. It depends on the speed of the kill. But when, to protect hunting, you kill off predators, then that is certainly the crueler option. And when hunters kill more than the natural predators would, and kill off healthier animals than the predators would, that's also crueler.

Really doesn't matter to me. If I am hungry, and they are there to kill, they will become dinner. They are no match for humans, and that being the case, they fall second or lower in the food chain to humans. In case you haven't noticed, all of nature is a food chain, and we too are in it, just at the top.

But our natural means do not place us at the top of the food chain. Only through technological development did we attain that. Wooden spears are about the extent of what is natural for humans. Chimps use simple spear, pre-modern humans used spears, and Neanderthals used spears (both homosapiens and neanderthals developed stone tipped spear technology under 100,000 years ago). Modern humans survived for over 100,000 before technological advancements, beyond wooden tipped spears, developed.

Humans are destructive for two reasons, one is the imbalance our technology provides and two is that, in most places, we are an invasive species. In Africa large animals, for the most part, did not go extinct with our emergence. We evolved, over millions of years, with them, and the tool use, that changed over time with the various human species, were things they evolved to deal with. Nowadays our technology is so far beyond anything that nature can defend against. Nature has, for tens of thousands of years, been unable to deal with the simple technology we had since we moved beyond our natural home of Africa.

What we had in both Americas, Asia, Australia, and Europe (Neanderthals, prior to the arrival of homosapiens, used thrusting spears and possibly short range throwing spears) were massive extinctions, particularly of megafauna, with the arrivals of humans, but not Africa. The reason is that the technological advancement, one that is far greater today than it was when humans first arrived, were far beyond what nature had adapted to in Africa. Those weapons, when place in such an unfamiliar and unprepared environment, were devastating. Invasive species wreck havoc, look at cats and cane toads in Australia to see what happens when animals suddenly have to deal with a threat they didn't evolve to deal with, and, with humans, you throw in weapons into that mix. The weapons we have today are so much more advanced, and can cause so much destruction so quickly, that the use of humans to control animal species, is extremely dangerous to the welfare of those species.

In addition to that, the unnatural developments our society has accomplished, with regards to medicine, architecture, food production etc. means that our population has grown to a massive level, one unsupportable by the natural environment. If humans were all to rely on their natural environments, they'd wipe it out quickly.

Humans are as far removed from any natural position in the environment as any species can ever become.

[Osborn F. Enready]

Guess what Alonzo.

Regardless of any law, I will be hunting for meat and food for myself and my loved ones and I will be doing it with arms. Both within my rights as an American citizen.

I suppose if the movement gets so strong as to outlaw my hunting and my food sources, perhaps I will have to look at those doing that as new additions to that level of the food chain, since they in essence will be outlawing my way of life, my rights as a citizen, and far surpassing any value I put on society with overwhelming burden.

You do what you have to do, I will do what I have to do.

Survival of the fittest is how it has always been, and will always be, regardless of constructs made by man, supported or unsupported by man.

One ripple in nature is all it takes for us all to be gone anyway.

[Alonzo]

I suppose if the movement gets so strong as to outlaw my hunting and my food sources, perhaps I will have to look at those doing that as new additions to that level of the food chain, since they in essence will be outlawing my way of life, my rights as a citizen, and far surpassing any value I put on society with overwhelming burden.


So, if hunting were outlawed, you may have to look at killing those who outlawed it, and those who pushed for those laws?

You think it's acceptable to kill humans who prevent you from killing non humans. This after you have already stated the superiority of humans to other animals? Always have to have something to kill, eh Osborn?

[Osborn F. Enready]

Alonzo said:
So, if hunting were outlawed, you may have to look at killing those who outlawed it, and those who pushed for those laws?

Possibly. Have to find food somewhere, and why not use the people threatening my life the most?

Alonzo said:
You think it's acceptable to kill humans who prevent you from killing non humans.

If that is the way you want to put it, sure.

Alonzo said:
This after you have already stated the superiority of humans to other animals?

Yes. The reasons humans are superior are pretty evident, but if some group of humans attempts to drag us all down to the level of animals again, from where we came, I will willfully seperate myself from that group by any means necessary.

Alonzo said:
Always have to have something to kill, eh Osborn?

Yea, finding food with adequate protein, carbohydrates and fat is a fact of life. I can't help it you resist nature, natural law and the world that surrounds you.

[Alonzo]

And I can't help it if you advocate killing your political opponents. I've never once advocated killing a hunter for being a hunter, I've never once advocated killing a politician who wants to enact pro-hunting legislation. My comments have never extended beyond a hunter in the act of hunting, someone who is already in the process of killing or looking to kill. Even then my point is to stop them, I don't have a desire to actually see them dead.

Sorry, but I find the idea that you would advocate killing your political opponents to be disgusting.

[Osborn F. Enready]

Alonzo said:
And I can't help it if you advocate killing your political opponents.

What bullshit. I never did. I advocated killing those attempting to legislate rational living into illegality. That has nothing to with being political opponents, it has to do with them being opponents to rational living and attempting to lay claim to my life.

Also, before you spout off about such claims, you should read the title of the thread again...... It was the OP title that brought up the concept of shooting people that you disagree with.....

Alonzo said:
I've never once advocated killing a hunter for being a hunter, I've never once advocated killing a politician who wants to enact pro-hunting legislation.

And your point? Did you miss the title of the thread?

Alonzo said:
My comments have never extended beyond a hunter in the act of hunting, someone who is already in the process of killing or looking to kill. Even then my point is to stop them, I don't have a desire to actually see them dead.

Self-defense of your own life would change that view, or you would perish.

I abhor the use of force, but force is a fact of life for survival, and while I never desire to use force or to inflict harm on another person, there are times when both are necessary daily, in all parts of the world.

Alonzo said:
Sorry, but I find the idea that you would advocate killing your political opponents to be disgusting.

Yea, well welcome to the real world sleepy head. Its been happening since people existed, and will most likely continue well into our own self-constructed demise. If it wasn't for people with that attitude, you wouldn't be in this country right now.

[Truth_and_Power]

And I can't help it if you advocate killing your political opponents. I've never once advocated killing a hunter for being a hunter, I've never once advocated killing a politician who wants to enact pro-hunting legislation. My comments have never extended beyond a hunter in the act of hunting, someone who is already in the process of killing or looking to kill. Even then my point is to stop them, I don't have a desire to actually see them dead.

Sorry, but I find the idea that you would advocate killing your political opponents to be disgusting.

You've both sarcastically advocated killing people for one reason or another.. grow up and unplug from the OUTRAGE outlet.

[Alonzo]

You've both sarcastically advocated killing people for one reason or another.. grow up and unplug from the OUTRAGE outlet.

I've sarcastically done it, but I don't think he's being sarcastic. If a law were passed in his state to outlaw all hunting, I think he genuinely believes that killing is an appropriate response. He's certainly taking the time to argue that.

The furthest I've gone, while being serious, is I said I don't care if a hunter is shot in the process of hunting. It's about stopping them from killing something, not about actually killing them. But I never even advocated shooting them, I simply said I don't care. Again, I never, while being serious, advocated shooting and killing hunters. And I've never, joking or not, advocated killing someone for passing pro-hunter legislation or working to expand legal hunting.

What bullshit. I never did. I advocated killing those attempting to legislate rational living into illegality. That has nothing to with being political opponents, it has to do with them being opponents to rational living and attempting to lay claim to my life.


Legislation is a political process. You're saying that if a legislator was going to cast the vote that outlawed hunting then killing them is appropriate.

Also, before you spout off about such claims, you should read the title of the thread again...... It was the OP title that brought up the concept of shooting people that you disagree with.....

It was the title of the piece I posted, I didn't repeat the "shoot hunters" part in my commentary and I never advocated shooting or killing someone for beliefs or political actions. And I've never advocated shooting hunters myself while being serious. The furthest I've gone is said I personally don't care.

Self-defense of your own life would change that view, or you would perish.

I abhor the use of force, but force is a fact of life for survival, and while I never desire to use force or to inflict harm on another person, there are times when both are necessary daily, in all parts of the world.

Sorry osborn, but I don't think "He outlawed hunting!" would qualify as "self defense". Certainly it wouldn't qualify as "necessary" to survive.

[Truth_and_Power]

Certainly it wouldn't qualify as "necessary" to survive.

There are many freedoms that could be taken from you that would satisfy this requirement. Are you willing to remain docile no matter what?

[Alonzo]

So, truth, Osborn is correct when he advocates killing those who would outlaw hunting?

[Osborn F. Enready]

Alonzo said:
Legislation is a political process. You're saying that if a legislator was going to cast the vote that outlawed hunting then killing them is appropriate.

Appropriate or not, it would most likely happen, and I wouldn't be against it.

Its called being willing to make a stand for a rational lifetsyle, regardless of the majority will or the international will to recognize it. Its been done throughout history many times, and again, is nothing new..... but I do enjoy chuckling at all of your dramatic outrage.....


Alonzo said:
It was the title of the piece I posted, I didn't repeat the "shoot hunters" part in my commentary and I never advocated shooting or killing someone for beliefs or political actions. And I've never advocated shooting hunters myself while being serious. The furthest I've gone is said I personally don't care.

Should I mail you a cookie?

I really could care less in all truth Alonzo. Its clear to me that you view me as much your ideological enemy as I do you, so it should be no suprise when the clash of our ideologies finally comes in broad scale.

I am quite serious when I say I will die to defend my way of life that harms no rights of other LIVING PERSONS. Animals are not persons, and outlawing the killing of my main source of food (as it is many others main source of food also) will likely result in some mass bloodshed. You don't have to be a genius to see the obvious, I am just willing to admit it, while you don't seem to be capable of such, and instead put forth mock outrage.

Alonzo said:
Sorry osborn, but I don't think "He outlawed hunting!" would qualify as "self defense". Certainly it wouldn't qualify as "necessary" to survive.

Doesn't matter.... I will deal with that when the time comes if necessary, but I don't see this type of nonsense coming for a long time. Who knows though, with socialists in congress calling for the nationalization of oil and health insurance, nobody knows what could be next..... reason has obviously taken a backseat to irrational trends of thought, so time will tell when the revolution comes.

Truth and Power said:
There are many freedoms that could be taken from you that would satisfy this requirement. Are you willing to remain docile no matter what?

Exactly the point.

It doesn't matter who it is, if their goals are to remove my rights (as hunting is), they are lining themselves up for triggering and taking the results of revolution, be it peaceful or violent.

Which right it is matters little to me, as they are all logically corrollarries and dependent on the others. Removing one, removes them all. Some of us would die before letting this happen.

Some people are living in Utopia world, they just don't get it.

[Osborn F. Enready]

Alonzo said:
So, truth, Osborn is correct when he advocates killing those who would outlaw hunting?

Completely wrong.

Osborn said he may shoot those that DO outlaw hunting.

I am not an advocate of INITIATING FORCE. Those who actually DO outlaw hunting, would be initiating force against all people who depend on meat to survive, using the PROMISE OF FORCE from government for disobeying them.

[Alonzo]

Osborn said he may shoot those that DO outlaw hunting.

Ah, so you wait until the change is already there before killing. Kind of like revenge instead of prevention?

So if I was a senator, and the vote was 48-48 to outlaw hunting, and I was the last person present to vote, and I voted to outlaw it, I would be fair game to be shot and killed? Right?

It would be nice to reach a point where legislators could vote without worrying about someone shooting them because of the law they passed. I thought we had but apparently you're telling me we haven't. Who needs a civil society anyway?

Tell me osborn, what other laws do you advocate killing legislators over? This can't be the only one.

[Osborn F. Enready]

Alonzo said:
Ah, so you wait until the change is already there before killing. Kind of like revenge instead of prevention?

No, kind of like proof of treason before revolt.

Alonzo said:
So if I was a senator, and the vote was 48-48 to outlaw hunting, and I was the last person present to vote, and I voted to outlaw it, I would be fair game to be shot and killed? Right?

Most likely a large portion of the nation would view it that way, yes. It would be akin to voting to outlaw breathing. What should you expect, praise and cheers?

Alonzo said:
It would be nice to reach a point where legislators could vote without worrying about someone shooting them because of the law they passed. I thought we had but apparently you're telling me we haven't. Who needs a civil society anyway?

Again, wake up from your utopic, naieve view and we may be able to.

Civil society is not built on outlawing life with force, which is exactly what you are talking about, and championing. Nothing about your "ideal society" is civil, or worthy of my respect.

Alonzo said:
Tell me osborn, what other laws do you advocate killing legislators over? This can't be the only one.

Any laws that vioalte or logically contradict these foundational basis of our society. We have a clear and obvious right to alter or abolish any government that violates these rights, by force if necessary.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment III

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment IV

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.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment VII

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(continued)

[Osborn F. Enready]

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

AMENDMENT XIII
Passed by Congress January 31, 1865. Ratified December 6, 1865.

Note: A portion of Article IV, section 2, of the Constitution was superseded by the 13th amendment.

Section 1.
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2.
Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.


AMENDMENT XIV
Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.

Note: Article I, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 2 of the 14th amendment.

Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2.
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age,* and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3.
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4.
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5.
The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

AMENDMENT XV
Passed by Congress February 26, 1869. Ratified February 3, 1870.

Section 1.
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude--

Section 2.
The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

AMENDMENT XXII
Passed by Congress March 21, 1947. Ratified February 27, 1951.

Section 1.
No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of President more than once. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this Article was proposed by Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this Article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.

Section 2.
This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission to the States by the Congress.

AMENDMENT XXIV
Passed by Congress August 27, 1962. Ratified January 23, 1964.

Section 1.
The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay poll tax or other tax.

Section 2.
The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

etc....

and if you didn't NOTICE the lack of my support for the logically contradicting, and unconstitutional 16th Amendment, let me make it clear now by stating it.

[Osborn F. Enready]

What it seems you fail to understand Alonzo, is that legislation such as this DIRECTLY removes, infringes or abridges rights GUARANTEED to be recognized as inalienable to the people.

That in itself is grounds for revolt, if government fails to address the issue.

It also calls to point the obvious, that it would be an attempt to outlaw peoples ability to provide for themselves, should government and its markets fail to provide for them..... in effect, outlawing life without government dependence.

I find it humorous that you alledge I WOULD be the one to initiate force from my statements, as its clear that legislation such as you champion would directly threaten MY LIFE with force through legislation, and forced dependence on government.

I can only conlcude you are either in denial, or have trouble grasping the FACT that force by government, is still force, and when viewed as it must be, in the context of individual rights and the limits of government to use force against its own people, its quite unjust and WORTHY of retallitory force by the people.

[Alonzo]

Most likely a large portion of the nation would view it that way, yes. It would be akin to voting to outlaw breathing. What should you expect, praise and cheers?

I don't think a "large portion" of the nation would want to kill people over hunting.

And I'm not sure how, in any rational way, you could place hunting on the level of breathing.

Again, wake up from your utopic, naieve view and we may be able to.

I'm not the one advocating a "Get rid of everything and the world will magically transform into a better place" argument. You seem to think humans are something there's no evidence to think they are and will be able to live well, as a society as a whole and not just individuals, left entirely, or almost entirely, to their own devices. That's the naive argument.

Any laws that vioalte or logically contradict these foundational basis of our society. We have a clear and obvious right to alter or abolish any government that violates these rights, by force if necessary.

Considering you always rant about the government violating rights with laws and force, I can't help but conclude that you think it's acceptable to kill every, or almost every, lawmaker in Congress.

What it seems you fail to understand Alonzo, is that legislation such as this DIRECTLY removes, infringes or abridges rights GUARANTEED to be recognized as inalienable to the people.


Hunting is an inalienable right? Never saw that in the constitution.

I find it humorous that you alledge I WOULD be the one to initiate force from my statements, as its clear that legislation such as you champion would directly threaten MY LIFE with force through legislation, and forced dependence on government.

Not hunting=forced dependence on the government? :lmao:

And hunting itself is using force to kill and cause harm. The government's "force" would be used to prevent you from using force to kill and cause harm.

[Osborn F. Enready]

Alonzo said:
I don't think a "large portion" of the nation would want to kill people over hunting.

Thats naieve, and ignorant of what it takes to live when governments fail, as well as ignorant of the history, tradition and national pride that comes from firearms and hunting.

Alonzo said:
And I'm not sure how, in any rational way, you could place hunting on the level of breathing.

Without food, one cannot eat, and dies. Without breathing, one cannot keep the blood, muscles and brain fed with oxygen, and they die.

Its simple once you remove the denial factor you are dealing with.

Alonzo said:
I'm not the one advocating a "Get rid of everything and the world will magically transform into a better place" argument.

Quote where I have said those words you just fabricated and attributed to me?

Alonzo said:
You seem to think humans are something there's no evidence to think they are and will be able to live well, as a society as a whole and not just individuals, left entirely, or almost entirely, to their own devices. That's the naive argument.

You simply deny the history of man, how we got here, what makes societies thrive and where all VALUE for ANY ONE THING in this world originates....... within the individual. No collective can exist without individuals, and no collective can be successful without SUPPORT of its individuals.

Man can survive without the support of government.....
Government can't survive without support of men.......

Talk about naieve....... Pot, meet kettle.

Alonzo said:
Considering you always rant about the government violating rights with laws and force, I can't help but conclude that you think it's acceptable to kill every, or almost every, lawmaker in Congress.

As usual, your deduction and conclusion powers are stilted with bias and denial, showing that you hear only what you want to hear, and disregard anything else that deals with any given issue that contradicts what you want to hear.

Alonzo said:
Hunting is an inalienable right? Never saw that in the constitution.

2nd Amendment covers the right to keep and bear arms, 9th and 10th Amendment covers rights not enumerated, and the value of the firearm is the same today as it was then.... for self-defense, self-reliance(hunting) and overall protection from tyranny against the state.

No persons rights are violated when a person hunts, so please show me why hunting WOULDN'T be constitutionally protected?

Alonzo said:
Not hunting=forced dependence on the government?

Pretty obvious isn't it?

What is the first issue when a government fails? The failure of that governments currency.....

What are you going to do for food if government and its currency fails? Hunt and farm to provide food for what worthless money can no longer buy.

Open a history book..... You do realize GOVERNMENT CAN AND ALMOST ALWAYS DOES FAIL, don't you?

Alonzo said:
And hunting itself is using force to kill and cause harm.

Yes, to animals, which are food sources.

Alonzo said:
The government's "force" would be used to prevent you from using force to kill and cause harm.

The government would be using force against INNOCENT PEOPLE trying to provide themselves and their famillies food. The people are using force against animals TO PROVIDE food.

Government is damaging PEOPLES LIVES with their force.
People are NOURISHING AND FURTHERING LIVES with their force.

Are you really this illogical Alonzo?

[Buck Laser]

I think supporting the right to arm bears might some of the predator problem, at least with regard to humans.

[Osborn F. Enready]

Bears are pretty well armed naturally against their natural prey....much as humans Buck. ;)

I also want to state for Alonzo and everyone, I never advocate the use of force against other persons except in reasonable self-defense.

We all individually reserve the right (or choose not to for ourselves) to provide food for ourselves if necessity demands it by using force against natures food sources, animals, fish and plants.

I love animals and all living things, but I always put a human lifes preservation before any other living things life.

[Alonzo]

Thats naieve, and ignorant of what it takes to live when governments fail, as well as ignorant of the history, tradition and national pride that comes from firearms and hunting.

It's naive and ignorant to say that most people wouldn't kill over the banning of hunting?

If it's naive, then hunters are more bloodthirsty than I thought.

Without food, one cannot eat, and dies. Without breathing, one cannot keep the blood, muscles and brain fed with oxygen, and they die.

Its simple once you remove the denial factor you are dealing with.

Hmm..... interesting. I must be dead then, hell I must never have been born as my parents must be dead. Neither myself, nor my parents, have ever hunted.

I've always thought I survived off of stuff I've grown and things I've purchased from others, but thanks for setting me straight!

Quote where I have said those words you just fabricated and attributed to me?

I was paraphrasing.

You simply deny the history of man, how we got here, what makes societies thrive and where all VALUE for ANY ONE THING in this world originates....... within the individual. No collective can exist without individuals, and no collective can be successful without SUPPORT of its individuals.

Man can survive without the support of government.....
Government can't survive without support of men.......

Talk about naieve....... Pot, meet kettle.


Humans are social animals. It's part of human nature for our societies to have leaders, just as is true for most social animals. When there is no leader or leader group, humans don't have a very good track record of maintaining peace.

The government would be using force against INNOCENT PEOPLE trying to provide themselves and their famillies food. The people are using force against animals TO PROVIDE food.

Government is damaging PEOPLES LIVES with their force.
People are NOURISHING AND FURTHERING LIVES with their force.

Are you really this illogical Alonzo?

So government ban the killing of endangered species, yet that should be illegal to ban? Only a non human animal gets harmed.

Fact is you've complained many taxes, environmental regulations and various other things infringe on your rights through force. Therefore, if infringing on rights using force is the criteria for you advocating they be shot, then why don't you advocate shooting most congressmen?

I also want to state for Alonzo and everyone, I never advocate the use of force against other persons except in reasonable self-defense.


"You took away my right to kill animals!" Someone doesn't seem to equal self defense, which typically involves "I shot him because he lunged at me with an axe!".

Bears are pretty well armed naturally against their natural prey....much as humans Buck.

Go hunting while only using "natural" weapons and eat nothing you didn't kill using only your natural physical capabilities.

In a week or so I'll bring you some tofu to ward off the starvation.

[Osborn F. Enready]

Alonzo said:
It's naive and ignorant to say that most people wouldn't kill over the banning of hunting?

Yes, and a denial of nature and where you as a human fit into it.

Alonzo said:
If it's naive, then hunters are more bloodthirsty than I thought.

Once again, it has nothing to do with bloodthirst, it has everything to do with remaining a rational, rights respecting nation as opposed to a Nazi police state with forced dependence on the government dole. How long are you going to run this string of denial and mislabelling?

Alonzo said:
Hmm..... interesting. I must be dead then, hell I must never have been born as my parents must be dead. Neither myself, nor my parents, have ever hunted.

I've always thought I survived off of stuff I've grown and things I've purchased from others, but thanks for setting me straight!

Again, thanks for showing the overall naivete' you bring to the table of the debate. You purchase things because you can, because the market exists and because people are secure feeling enough to sell goods for currency. Go take a look around areas where governments are collapsing or already have, where currencies fail, and you will see exactly what I am talking about, and exactly what is wrong with your "utopic outlooks".

Outlawing hunting is just one of many priorities by animal rights activists, who are just another type of "religious" fundamentalist, with equally irrational methods and techniques of using force to achieve subjective intrests.

So, do you eat meat, are you a vegetarian or a vegan? Regardless of which, where would you get these things if the government outlawed homegrown, and hunting, and then the government failed and couldn't provide?

Alonzo said:
I was paraphrasing.

... and as usual, with a considerable amount of literary fictional license, not appreciated.

Alonzo said:
Humans are social animals. It's part of human nature for our societies to have leaders, just as is true for most social animals. When there is no leader or leader group, humans don't have a very good track record of maintaining peace.

Really, I have never been to war against myself and caused fatalities. IN fact, I have never killed anyone, including friends while our group of friends has no leader.......yet I see leaders of societies starting unnecessary wars and causing death all the time Alonzo.....

Yes, you have an opinion, but I don't think its correct and certainly has no more weight than mine.

Alonzo said:
So government ban the killing of endangered species, yet that should be illegal to ban?

Even endangered species can be killed for food when a HUMAN is starving, ban not withstanding.

Alonzo said:
Only a non human animal gets harmed.

Rational people take rational steps to TRY to preserve as complete a eco-system as they can. The eco-system however comes SECOND to the PEOPLE who inhabit it.

Alonzo said:
Fact is you've complained many taxes, environmental regulations and various other things infringe on your rights through force. Therefore, if infringing on rights using force is the criteria for you advocating they be shot, then why don't you advocate shooting most congressmen?

As I said... I don't advocate force when peaceful means still exist to achieve the same goal.... though we are nearing a time when we are running out of peaceful means, so then I just may start doing so..... Talk to me after the election if one of the bi-partisan puppets gets in office.


Alonzo said:
"You took away my right to kill animals!" Someone doesn't seem to equal self defense, which typically involves "I shot him because he lunged at me with an axe!".

Only to people who don't understand the role and value of a society with access to meat fats and protiens.

You attempt to argue the issue using emotion, as opposed to logic.

The logical fact is, both are force being directed against someone, and only one has the NATURAL RIGHT TO DO SO, that being the hunter, not the congressman.

Alonzo said:
Go hunting while only using "natural" weapons and eat nothing you didn't kill using only your natural physical capabilities.

In a week or so I'll bring you some tofu to ward off the starvation.

LOL... I love this fallacy argument......

I have news for you Alonzo, every building, every tool, every invention and every process that exists that is NON-natural, is man made, and examples of MANS NATURAL ABILITY to USE NATURE to his own benefit.

Man using firearms against his natural prey is as natural and rational as the lion who uses his claws and teeth against his natural prey...... why? They both work with every tool they can to do the essential chores of living, one of which entails KILLING FOR FOOD with the NATURAL TOOLS NATURE PROVIDED YOU.

Tigers and lions have claws and teeth.... humans have opposable thumbs, rational minds and an ability to turn ideas, imagination and logical deduction into TOOLS, the better with which to live, to hunt, to educate and to prosper in the world in which nature has placed us.

I can take game with no weapons, but no logical person would give up specialty tools to disadvantage themself if it wasn't necessity and life depended on it.

[Alonzo]

Yes, and a denial of nature and where you as a human fit into it.

If you want to see humans role in nature you may still be able to find a few African tribes fulfilling that role. Other than that, you you aren't fulfilling our role any more than I am.

Once again, it has nothing to do with bloodthirst, it has everything to do with remaining a rational, rights respecting nation as opposed to a Nazi police state with forced dependence on the government dole. How long are you going to run this string of denial and mislabelling?

"I advocate killing people if they outlaw hunting", is not bloodthirsty? And you actually think most people would agree with you? That's laughable and scary. Laughable in the sense that you think it's a common viewpoint, scary if I'm ever within 100 miles of you.

Again, thanks for showing the overall naivete' you bring to the table of the debate. You purchase things because you can, because the market exists and because people are secure feeling enough to sell goods for currency. Go take a look around areas where governments are collapsing or already have, where currencies fail, and you will see exactly what I am talking about, and exactly what is wrong with your "utopic outlooks".

:Looks at Sweden, Denmark and other European nations:

NO!!!!! Not that that! Anything but long life expectancy, lower crime, and high quality of life!

Which one is closer to a religious fundamentalist? And which one is willing to kill if society doesn't give into their demands? Seems like that fits you far better than me.

So, do you eat meat, are you a vegetarian or a vegan? Regardless of which, where would you get these things if the government outlawed homegrown, and hunting, and then the government failed and couldn't provide?

I'm a vegetarian who eats vegan when it's an option. If the government outlawed hunting and animals farms (I don't know what you are referring to by homegrown, as it could mean farming animals or plants) I'd do just fine.

Really, I have never been to war against myself and caused fatalities. IN fact, I have never killed anyone, including friends while our group of friends has no leader.......yet I see leaders of societies starting unnecessary wars and causing death all the time Alonzo.....

One person does not make society.

As I said... I don't advocate force when peaceful means still exist to achieve the same goal.... though we are nearing a time when we are running out of peaceful means, so then I just may start doing so..... Talk to me after the election if one of the bi-partisan puppets gets in office.

So if McCain or Obama gets elected you may start advocating killing people?

Man using firearms against his natural prey is as natural and rational as the lion who uses his claws and teeth against his natural prey...... why? They both work with every tool they can to do the essential chores of living, one of which entails KILLING FOR FOOD with the NATURAL TOOLS NATURE PROVIDED YOU.

Firearms are natural? I thought you were crazy before but damn.

As for your illogical, irrational ranting, I really don't give a damn and I'm not even going to acknowledge such comments. You just seem to start sputtering about that when you have nothing else to counter with. It seems that everyone who's ever debated you is irrational, illogical, and objectively wrong because you claim they're using force.

[Osborn F. Enready]

That was a hilarious reply Alonzo.....

I don't think I will reply in hopes it will end here and others can enjoy the read and end there..... ;)