posted
Pardon my nitpick, but feeding one's family isn't really a right in the United States. Feeding one's family actually happens through work. Let a corporations profit margins fall by 1% and they'll lay off thousands who then lose their homes. Look at the American Rust Belt states. Detroit looks like Berlin at the end of World War Two. Some people stridently defend the so-called "right" of a corporation to make those kinds of decisions that ultimately badly impact our entire society in order to further enrich an already rich 1/2 of 1% of the population. If we're talking about the right to feed one's family, then private entities shouldn't have the ability to deprive people of that in order to protect a percent on the profit margin. Let's also not forget the banks have enormous power that they use in ways that cause massive job losses, home losses, and social destruction and all just to further enrich themselves. Thomas Jefferson warned of the power of banks. The years 2008 and 2009 saw the biggest transfer of wealth in history from the working people and middle class to the top 1% of the population. And it's still going on. These are parasites fattening themselves on the blood of the country.
Don't get me wrong. I agree 100%---feeding your family is a right. I think we need laws to ensure that, since the Bill of Rights was written in a period when the power of massive banks to deprive citizens of a living was unforeseen. No one should have that kind of power. Not governments, not corporations, not banks.
-------------------- Heads Carolina, Tails California...somewhere greener...somewhere warmer...or something soon to that effect... Posts: 387 | From: Arizona | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hunting is a privilege I've enjoyed since Dad started taking me when I was about 5 years old -- 51 years ago. However, it is as precious and important to me as a right and I will always treat anyone or anything that tries to remove the privilege as if they are trying to take a right from me. The reason I consider it a privilege is because I strongly believe anyone who poaches (no license, over bag, wrong equipment, etc.) should have their hunting privileges removed for a period of time. I will admit guys that I'm pretty biased as I'm a retired wildlife biologist (IN, KS, MO, and KY).
-------------------- If the mind wanders, so too will the arrow.
Member of various archery organizations. Posts: 3884 | From: Kentucky | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have to agree with the post that it is not mentioned in the United States Constitution. With that said Wisconsin did put it into our State Constitution so until that one ever gets challenged in court that is the law here. Others would argue since humans are predators and have hunted since the beginning of time that it is a naturual right or even a God given right if you want to bring religion into it. Whatever ever it is lets just continue to hunt and while living this great tradition continue to protect this "right" or "privilage".
Posts: 37 | From: Wisconsin | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I generally support the trend to make hunting a constitutional right by states'. It makes me a bit nervous though for fear that the push will fail in some state and embolden the anti's. As a recently retired state agency Deputy Commissioner, and still active in the shooting sports I'm glad to see the antis have generally become much less a persuasive force these days. They've shot themselves in the foot (pun intended) with some of their really stupid attacks. I hope they keep it up. The more kooks from Hollywood they enlist the worse off they'll keep doing too.
-------------------- If the mind wanders, so too will the arrow.
Member of various archery organizations. Posts: 3884 | From: Kentucky | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I believe it is a right but the courts have never agreed with me on this.
The King owned the game and the states assumed this role when the country was founded.
There are now too many things that are deemed a privilege now because the government wants to regulate it and collect revenue.
I have never figured out why someone created the idea that driving was a privilege, not a right and it is as accepted by people as one of the 10 commandments.
Posts: 21 | From: Ohio | Registered: Jul 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
the reason that driving is a privilege is that it basically it didnt exist then.....not in th fashion it does today.....you have a right to travel, but not to drive a vehicle to do it.....hunting, on the other had, did exist then....and it was being done with both the bent stick and the musket.....the problem with it is that we assume it to be a right.....and you know what they say about assumptions......
-------------------- Far better is it to dare mighty things than to take rank with those poor, timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat
posted
I think it is a right but that dosen't mean that one can sit back and not get in the fight to maintain it. The way legal decisions are made today it seems the law is not relevant.
Posts: 29 | From: California | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I believe it is a right on public ground.....a privilege on private ground.
I travel a lot for my job. What gets me is how people who live in cities and rarely if ever get out to the country have the nerve to try and tell my what is 'right' and 'wrong'. Growing up on a farm, I get irked by the lack of respect that is given to farmers, people who love the outdoors, etc. Just my 2 cents. I enjoy educating them though Posts: 41 | From: Minnesota | Registered: Jul 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'll state my opinion at the on-set. Hunting is a privilege, not a right. Those that disagree and don't want to waste time on listening to my rationale can stop reading now.
"Rights" as defined by modern society cannot be given or taken away. By that definition Freedom is not a right, anyone who commits crimes against society or violates social morays to a defined extent will be locked up and their freedom curtailed. Even the pursuit of Happiness is allowed only to the extent that it doesn't hurt anyone or go against the outer boundaries of common convention. Even Life is debatable; many states still have the death penalty. Rights are supposed to be inviolate, privileges granted according to the worthiness of the individual.
I have no problem with the idea that my Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness are not rights. I shouldn't be able to sit on my butt and expect to be handed the important things. I don’t want to have to depend on anyone else to keep me safe, happy and alive. Anything worth having is worth fighting for. I don't want anything given to me, I want to earn it. I want everyone else to be worthy and earn it as well.
Hunting is licensed, controlled, regulated according to level of training and education then doled out once certain economic conditions are met. Doesn’t sound like a “right” to me. There are enough Bozo’s out there as it is without the idea that EVERYONE should be able to hunt regardless of how, where or when, right? How many times have we spent hours and hours on this message board complaining about topics such as crossbows? If hunting is a right, shouldn’t crossbow hunters have the right to hunt when and where they like as anyone else does? Why do we have seasons? Why do we have certain areas closed to certain methods or during certain times of the year?
Time after time “hunters” are ticketed and/or arrested for either killing game out of season, after hours, or in closed areas. In my experience nearly every one of them, when facing a fine or jail time for repeated offences, spout the phrase, “I have a right to feed my family, I have a right to hunt!”. My response was always, “If your family is hungry you should have sold the $600 bow, $800 rifle, $10,000 ATV or the $50,000 truck before you resorted to breaking the law.” Should these people be defended and their “right” to hunt preserved? I think their privilege should be revoked.
For those of you that stuck with me through all of the explanation, I thank you. In my opinion hunting will always be a privilege worth fighting to keep and that should be taken away from those who, through their actions, show they don’t deserve it. Things that are given to you are free and therefore worthless. Things that must be earned and fought for are priceless.
I guess it comes down to the idea of worthless rights or priceless privileges.
OkKeith
-------------------- In a moment of decision the best thing you can do is the right thing. The worst thing you can do is nothing. Theodore Roosevelt Posts: 869 | From: Norman, OK | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
-------------------- THE VOICES HAVEN'T BOTHERED ME SINCE I STARTED POKING THEM WITH A Q-TIP. Posts: 2556 | From: North Fork , Idaho | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
OkKeith, I read through your post and it is thought-provoking. I hope you will read through mine.
While rights or freedom can be taken away, they cannot be taken away without due process of law. This is far and away much different than saying unless rights are inviolate, you don't really have them. Priveleges are something that can be taken away without, necessarily, due process of law.
OkKeith said: "I don’t want to have to depend on anyone else to keep me safe, happy and alive."
Oh, but you have. If you were born before 1990, I might say that, theoretically, the Strategic Air Command kept you alive by deterring a Soviet attack. I would also add that if a fire department put out a fire anywhere within a 10 mile radius of your house, they kept you alive, or at least happy. Because the fire didn't spread, as in the Great Chicago Fire. I'll also add that unless you're getting water from your own personal well, your municipal water department keeps you alive because you're not dying of water-borne diseases.
It's easy to be the "rugged individual" and say we don't need anyone else, but the fact is, we do. We're social animals and we evolved that way as a species. We learned that cooperation during a hunt results in a downed Wooly Mammoth and plenty of meat as opposed to one poor sap that ended up as toe jam between the toes of said mammoth because he tried to do it himself. Humans won't survive living like Praying Mantises. That's not how we evolved and that's not how our brain works. Solitary creatures never evolved past "Need food, need sleep, need water, need dry hole". This internet wouldn't exist if people weren't social animals. And, if I may say so Keith, if you don't rely on others for happiness, why do you use the internet and this forum? Surely you must derive some sort of satisfaction from it, else why do it?
The Founding Fathers determined that people, at least in the United States, are born with rights. They need not "earn" them---however one does that. If, for example, I said I "earned" my rights because I served in the army, I would be wrong. I have no more or no less rights than the Americans who never served. Saying that people must "earn" their rights is a sure-fire recipe for having a nation where some despot sets the bar so high, no one can achieve it. Then you have a society like Ancient Sparta, full of helots. The Founding Founders were well aware of that, which is why they said:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Ergo, every American has rights here, from birth. No one "earns" anything. Having people "earn" rights" is how you end up with loyalty oaths that must be signed at every swearing in of a new leader, people stripped of rights for voting for the losing side of an election and having to "earn" back those rights through serving the new regime. I know that's not what you meant, Keith, but that's how the "earning rights" gig plays out in reality among human beings. That's why the Founding Fathers wrote the proviso the way they did.
-------------------- Heads Carolina, Tails California...somewhere greener...somewhere warmer...or something soon to that effect... Posts: 387 | From: Arizona | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged |
-------------------- THE VOICES HAVEN'T BOTHERED ME SINCE I STARTED POKING THEM WITH A Q-TIP. Posts: 2556 | From: North Fork , Idaho | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
I read your post and agree with the better part of it. You quoted me accurately when I said,
"I don’t want to have to depend on anyone else to keep me safe, happy and alive."
Don't want to, yes. Under modern social convention, have to; to some degree. I agree that certain rights are granted from birth and should be defended with all possible fervor. Those rights are just not worth much if we don’t work to make them meaningful. I didn't mean to imply anything else, and apologize if it seemed that way. I just don’t believe that hunting as we practice it today is part of that.
My feeling is that having the right to something (life, liberty, and happiness) doesn't mean I am ENTITLED to it. Maybe I should have put that in my earlier discourse. After all, we are only guaranteed the right to pursue happiness. If I am unhappy, I shouldn’t rest on my laurels and expect someone to come and make me so. If my life or liberty is threatened it seems ridiculous (to me at least) to wave my hands in the air and DEMAND someone else do something about it while I do nothing. I don’t require the internet to be happy. It’s just something I enjoy. If it went away, I would find other things to spend my free time on just as I did before it got here. True, it would suck, but I would get over it.
I still think hunting is a privilege. One that is, and should be, earned. In Oklahoma if someone is born after a certain date, they must attend a Hunter’s Safety Course and pass a test in order to buy a license and tags. Buying these licenses and tags doesn’t guarantee that someone can hunt. It only affords the buyer the opportunity. The would-be hunter must then obey the laws governing the use of public lands or meet the requirements of hunting on private land not owned by them. If they own the land, it’s still not a free-for-all. There are laws that govern time of year/day, bag limit and method. Meet each of these requirements and the hunter can earn the privilege to hunt.
Individuals in Oklahoma that have committed egregious violations of the laws governing hunting (and fishing) have lost their hunting privileges FOR LIFE! So, would this be unconstitutional? Here in my state we had a vote to insert hunting and fishing into the state constitution as a right:
“Oklahoma Right to Hunt and Fish, State Question 742 was a legislatively-referred constitutional amendment. It enacted law to give all people of the state the right to hunt, trap, fish and take game and fish, subject to reasonable regulation.”
Arguments about what “reasonable regulation” even means aside, I actually voted against this. It was meant to head off anti-hunting groups and prevent organized hunter-harassment events. I felt there were other ways to prevent these things. Now there is a group of habitual poachers and general wildlife vandals that have filed suit to get their hunting privileges back on the grounds that not allowing them to kill game indiscriminately is a violation of their rights. How can that be (for lack of a better term)…right?
As I have said before: I have hunted all my life. It’s not just something I do or an intense hobby. It has informed my personality since birth through my parents and into adulthood by way of my own experiences. I can’t imagine a life without hunting. I will preserve my privilege to hunt through my voice, my pen, my wallet and the finger I use to punch the ballot button. I will ensure that privilege by continuing to earn it through following both the letter and the intent of the law.
Tsalagi, I appreciate your learned response to my earlier post. I think you and I would enjoy each other’s company around a camp fire, even if we didn’t see every issue the same way. How boring would life be if we all agreed on everything?
OkKeith
-------------------- In a moment of decision the best thing you can do is the right thing. The worst thing you can do is nothing. Theodore Roosevelt Posts: 869 | From: Norman, OK | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
For me I believe it is a right. I don't believe the people we elect to serve us should decide how we use a resource given by God. But just like anything else if they can find a way to make money they will. Alot of people believe getting married is a right but have paid for a license to do so for many years. In fact some look down on a man and woman who say they are married in gods eyes but not recognized buy the court. Do we have rights to a property that we purchase, if so why is it we must pay the govt rent to live there for the rest of our lives. Sorry to go on like this but these kinds of subjects have always been a sore spot for me. Rights are what should be the rule of the land. Privileges just take in more money and thats what we live with everyday.
posted
OkKeith, I agree with much of what you say. I believe strongly in hunting ethics. If hunting wasn't regulated, we would have idiots out there doing amazingly cruel things. Just take the already cruel things poachers do and magnify it by several thousand. I tend to look at things like this: You have a right to own a gun. But commit a crime with a gun and you lose that right. Ought to be the same with a car. And the same with hunting. A right to hunt, yes, but with rights come responsibilities. Break the law, lose the right.
I disagree with: "My feeling is that having the right to something (life, liberty, and happiness) doesn't mean I am ENTITLED to it."
My thinking is we are entitled to life. That's been a basic of the concept of compassion for quite some time now. That every human being is entitled to life. That no person has the right to take another's life without solid, justifiable reasons of self-defense. I would classify capital punishment as self-defense, for the purpose of this discussion. We once again get into a problem of defining who has a right to live if we do not assume all people are entitled to life at birth.
About this: "If my life or liberty is threatened it seems ridiculous (to me at least) to wave my hands in the air and DEMAND someone else do something about it while I do nothing."
Ah, but that's been the basis of professional armies--and so-called civilization---since the dawn of agricultural civilization. The civilians since the Ancient Egyptians have waved their hands in the air and demanded Pharaoh, or Caesar, or the King, or the President do something about it. And they did. That's why they were paying their armies. And why the civilians, in turn, paid taxes to pay those armies. Now, take Ancient Middle Eastern armies, for example. Yes, you could call up a peasant levy to fight. But put them up against highly skilled and trained chariot crews with skilled chariot archers and you can watch your peasant levy become pincushions rather quickly. This is the entire concept of "demanding someone else do something" while you do nothing. The same applied to Soviet bombers, since the average American couldn't fly an interceptor without training. We train and pay people to become professionals to defend us, be they military, police, or firefighters. I was trained and paid to be a soldier, years ago. I wasn't drafted, the government paid me for my services. This is how an agricultural civilization works. Always has. Always will. So long as you have to defend your cropland, however you define that, you have to have professionals to do it. Or you don't hold on to it long. In short, you then plow for someone else.
This is a very interesting discussion and very good points made. I agree, it would be great to all sit by a campfire. With some homemade jerky!
-------------------- Heads Carolina, Tails California...somewhere greener...somewhere warmer...or something soon to that effect... Posts: 387 | From: Arizona | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
