Gun Ownership is a Privilege, Not a Right

[Sam.I.Am]

Why have deer become an important element in a debate essentially about handguns in cities?

Actually, the OP was about guns in general and not handguns specifically.

 

[lionking]

No, of course there is not however when you are discussing situations that are specifically targeted at a specific country and try to use the opinions of people in an entirely different country (or set of countries) just to attempt to justify what you are saying then you are using weasel wording.

And the fact that so many Americans are unwilling to listen to opinions from other cultures is not an issue to you? As someone said in another thread, Americans are very willing to lecture the rest of the world.

 

[Sam.I.Am]

And the fact that so many Americans are unwilling to listen to opinions from other cultures is not an issue to you? As someone said in another thread, Americans are very willing to lecture the rest of the world.

And the rest of the world ignores a lot of those "Lectures" so what's your point? Hell, a lot of Americans ignore those very same lectures as well.

Listening is not the same as agreeing. Obviously I listened to you otherwise I couldn't have responded now could I?

 

[carlosy]

Great numbers of armed Americans believe that widespread gun ownership is the only thing that prevents their government from taking away other rights in the Constitution.

And so did the people who wrote and ratified the 2nd amendment.

(bold by me)

So, gun ownership is a religion.
That explains alot.

 

[Sam.I.Am]

(bold by me)

So, gun ownership is a religion.
That explains alot.

Beliefs are not exclusive to religions.

 

[carlosy]

Beliefs are not exclusive to religions.

Is there any documented case or evidence that gun ownership prevented any government from taking away rights ever? (Besides that gun ownership right prevented government from taking away the gun ownership right)

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

The problem with the hunting argument is that wildlife management for many people means creating "crops" of animals specifically for hunters to shoot.

Opponents also argue that hunting is ineffective for solving human/deer conflicts. Studies show that car/deer collisions increase during hunting season because hunters frighten the deer out of the woods and onto roads. Contrary to popular belief, hunting does not address Lyme disease because the ticks are usually spread to humans by mice, not deer. And as long as suburban landscaping includes deer-preferred plants such as tulips and rhododendrons, that landscaping will attract hungry deer, no matter how many deer there are. Opponents also argue that hunting does not reduce the deer population because removing some individuals from the population results in more food per deer, which leads to the births of more twins and triplets. This also means that hunting is unnecessary because the deer will self-regulate and give birth to fewer fawns when food is scarce. If the deer population needs to be further reduced, immunocontraception can be used.

Hunting is ineffective because state wildlife management agencies intentionally keep the deer population high, for hunters.

Lands managed for hunting are sometimes purchased and maintained with tax dollars, even though 95% of Americans do not hunt.

Linky.

When hunters talk about shooting overpopulated animals, they are usually referring to white-tailed deer, representing only 3 percent of all the animals killed by hunters. Sport hunters shoot millions of mourning doves, squirrels, rabbits, and waterfowl, and thousands of predators, none of whom any wildlife biologist would claim are overpopulated or need to be hunted. Even with deer, hunters do not search for starving animals. They either shoot animals at random, or they seek out the strongest and healthiest animals in order to bring home the biggest trophies or largest antlers. Hunters and wildlife agencies are not concerned about reducing deer herds, but rather with increasing the number of targets for hunters and the number of potential hunting license dollars. Thus, they use deer overpopulation as a smokescreen to justify their sport. The New Jersey Division of Fish, Game and Wildlife states that "the deer resource has been managed primarily for the purpose of sport hunting," (New Jersey Division of Fish, Game and Wildlife, An Assessment of Deer Hunting in New Jersey, 1990).

Hunters also shoot nonnative species such as ring-necked pheasants who are hand-fed and raised in pens and then released into the wild just before hunting season. Even if the pheasants - native to China - survive the hunters' onslaught, they are certain to die of exposure or starvation in the nonnative environment. While hunters claim they save overpopulated animals from starvation, they intentionally breed some species and let them starve to death.

Hunters and hunting organizations also promote the idea that hunting is necessary for "wildlife management" and "conservation." "Wildlife management" and "conservation" are euphemisms used to describe programs that ensure that there are always enough animals for hunters to hunt. Because they make their money primarily from the sale of hunting licenses, the major function of wildlife agencies is not to protect individual animals or biological diversity, but to propagate "game" species for hunters to shoot.

State agencies build roads through our wild lands to facilitate hunter access, they pour millions of tax dollars into law enforcement of hunting regulations and hunter education, and into manipulating habitat by burning and clear-cutting forests to increase the food supply for "game" species such as deer. More food means a larger herd and more animals available as targets. Hunting programs also cause wildlife overpopulation by stimulating breeding by conducting "buck only" hunts, which can leave as many as six does per buck; pen-raising quail, grouse, and pheasants for use as hunters' targets; transporting raccoons, antelopes, martens, wild turkeys, and other animals from one state to another to bolster populations for hunters; and exterminating predators like wolves and mountain lions in order to throw prey populations off balance, thereby "justifying" the killing of both "dangerous" and "surplus" animals.

Linky.

Hunting simply decreases the competition for food among the animals that survive a hunt. As the potential for malnutrition is reduced, the incidence of death and disease is reduced. The animals left behind will be better fed, become stronger and their potential for reproduction will increase. As quite clearly stated in the college textbook "Wildlife Ecology and Management" (Fifth Edition, Pearson Education, Inc. 2003), "[h]unting mortality is frequently compensatory because it usually increases the life expectancy of individuals surviving the hunt, promotes higher reproductive rates, or does both."


The amount an animal is nourished directly corresponds to its ability to reproduce. Taking white-tailed deer as an example (the most hunted yet possibly also the most overpopulated species in the United States), studies have shown that the more well nourished the doe (female deer), the more likely she is to reproduce. The well fed doe may also reproduce at a younger age (and thus produce more fawns during her lifetime), and the incidence of birthing twins or triplets increases

...

All of this helps explain why, even after decades of hunting, deer numbers remain high in much of the country. In fact, the basis for hunting regulations such as hunting seasons and bag limits (how many deer a hunter is permitted to kill), are premised on this compensatory theory. The goal is to allow the sport of killing to take place while at the same time, conserve enough deer for hunters to enjoy the following season. But how many deer exactly should each state allow to be killed and still have enough for next year? In other words, what is the "maximum sustained yield"? This is one of the persistently difficult and challenging questions facing state wildlife managers; and since these managers are compelled to satisfy their hunting constituency, the more deer in the field the better. If there aren't enough deer, the wildlife managers may end up without jobs (see prior blog post 9/25/09 "The Structure of our State Wildlife Agency System").

Linky.

 

[Varanid]

I am actually pretty left leaning (by US standards), but I am sick of the comments regarding "barbaric Americans", etc.

The first time you have a loved one end up as the victim in a home invasion (speaking from personal experience), you will stop being so mother *********** righteous, and decide that protecting your family is more important than anything else.

 

[Magyar]

Owning a gun is not a right - it's a privilege... that few people deserve.

Just because a bunch of guys named gun ownership a right a few hundred years ago doesn't mean it really is a right. Guns were different then.

It's not a right to own Anthrax, for example.

It's time America emerged from the past.

don't worry, all the gun freaks err NRA appoligists will soon come along and set you straight. It will not be the fault of the paranoid delusional mindset of the 2nd ammendment freaks, who need their guns to defend our nation against the black helicopters. OH NO - it was just another "IRRESPONSIBLE gun owner who is at fault. You see the mother was the legal owner and she simple broke one of the all too many laws that already burden gun owners by letting her obviously mentally ill child get a hold of them.

Nothing to see here move along. We'll clean up the blood and go shopping for that gattling gun I need to go hunt rabbits (do your best elmer fudd here)

 

[Sam.I.Am]

Is there any documented case or evidence that gun ownership prevented any government from taking away rights ever? (Besides that gun ownership right prevented government from taking away the gun ownership right)

That's kind of asking to prove a negative. There are however several examples where peoples rights were taken away after the guns were. Stalin, Hitler and Mao are the most well known ones. In America the British tried to do it when the colonists got all uppity but that didn't work out so well for them. That is one of the reasons that the 2nd amendment was added in the first place.

 

[MikeG]

Stalin Hitler and Mao, hey?

Can you provide data on gun ownership levels in Germany before and after Hitler, in China before and after Mao, and in Russia before and after Stalin, please? The latter two were poverty stricken 3rd world economies, of course, and the most dangerous weapon most of the peasants ever owned was a sickle.

Mike

 

[Magyar]

I am actually pretty left leaning (by US standards), but I am sick of the comments regarding "barbaric Americans", etc.

The first time you have a loved one end up as the victim in a home invasion (speaking from personal experience), you will stop being so mother *********** righteous, and decide that protecting your family is more important than anything else.

wow nothing like

Please explain how in Canada ( i picked it 'casue it's so close, but you could name any eu country) where guns are far less prevelant YET crime is FAR lower including home invasions. I am sorry your family member was a victim of a crime but unless you have an agenda or a an IQ lower than room temperature, you could come up with literally DOZENS of more effective, cheaper and safer means of preventing home invasions as well as any other property /assualt crimes in your home then a gun.

I always ask, though I have no idea why because the answer is always the same Nada, ZIP, ZILCH, zero for evidence on how many of these crimes have been stopped by guns.

But forgetting the CT school incident, just recently in the news - father kills son after going to gun shop to sell gun and father shoots son THINKS he's a home intruder (sadly in CT also)

and if you simply want anactodal evidence, My neighbor now has custody of his neice because his gun instructor, NRA instructor brother in law killed his wife, surprise, with one of 37 guns in the house! This was the guy who taught gun safety for a living and was involved in deciding if you get a gun.


Stories all over like this, yet google turns up NOTHING on gun owner stops crime outside of obvoiusly gun nut websites. OH and I don't mean to poison the well, but sadly I've been through this rodea before so I know what's coming - no it's not the evil librul media keeping the news away. The NRA is STILL one of the most powerfull lobbys' and FOUX news is not left wing.

oh and in my state, arguably one of the most restrictive
In fact, our investigation found more than 194,000 people in Massachusetts---that’s one in 25 Bay State adults--has the Class A license that could allow them to carry a concealed firearm. That's equal to one person on each city bus--or 10 movie goers at a sold out show.

Read more: http://www1.whdh.com/features/articles/hank/BOS4033/#ixzz2F7reul9J

yet not a SINGLE story can be found on how any one of these people EVER prevented so much as a jay walking
I guess all those criminals with their xray glasses always scope out the scene to make sure their not around.

 

[zeggman]

Are you saying it's a right to own guns that shoot multiple rounds without reloading?

I'd say it is.

What Constitution are you reading?

 

[zeggman]

Most of the civilised world agrees.

That's what nations are for -- you get to run yours the way you choose, and we get to run ours the way we choose.

 

[zeggman]

Define "basic rights"? What makes them basic? And don't cite an ambiguous document centuries old.

Sorry, that's what makes it a basic right -- it's spelled out in the Constitution.

Anyone who wants to assert that it's now a "privilege" instead has a hard legislative row to hoe.

 

[Sam.I.Am]

Stalin Hitler and Mao, hey?

Can you provide data on gun ownership levels in Germany before and after Hitler, in China before and after Mao, and in Russia before and after Stalin, please? The latter two were poverty stricken 3rd world economies, of course, and the most dangerous weapon most of the peasants ever owned was a sickle.

Mike

I can only use their own words. Apparently tyrannical dictators don't like to keep neat statistics on how effective their efforts were. Imagine that...

“The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let’s not have any native militia or native police. German troops alone will bear the sole responsibility for the maintenance of law and order throughout the occupied Russian territories, and a system of military strong-points must be evolved to cover the entire occupied country.”
- Adolf Hitler

“All political power comes from the barrel of a gun. The communist party must command all the guns, that way, no guns can ever be used to command the party.”
- Mao Tze Tung

“If the opposition disarms, well and good. If it refuses to disarm, we shall disarm it ourselves.”
- Joseph Stalin

There's no way that any sane person would say that they didn't endorse gun controls (and confiscation) in order to subjugate people.

But to get back OT. I also specifically addressed the American Revolution, Britain and one of the reasons for the second amendment. Namely the attempt by the British to disarm the colonists which was one of several factors in starting the revolutionary war in the first place.

 

[Monketi Ghost]

Which is why you should agree with me.

Who needs to hunt these days?

If wild animals need to be culled, let the forest service deal with it.

Nah, not in Michigan. Too many deer in the roadways killing people in cars or on motorcycles.

We definitely need the hunting folks here.

 

[casebro]

I'd say it is.

What Constitution are you reading?

The first "assault rifle" suit made it to the SCOTUS in the 1870s. It was over whether citizens have the right to own lever action Henry rifles. The Sumpremes held that individuals have the right to own the same small arms as used by the military.

 

[casebro]

Although I can't prove causation, the fact that there haven't been any firearm massacres since semi-automatics were banned in Australia leads me to brlieve that this is a good place to start.

And how has the overall violent crime rate been doing in the mean time? Pleas cite the numbers of murders separately.

 

[zeggman]

The first "assault rifle" suit made it to the SCOTUS in the 1870s. It was over whether citizens have the right to own lever action Henry rifles. The Sumpremes held that individuals have the right to own the same small arms as used by the military.

I would agree with that 100%.

I don't own a gun myself, and think hunting is barbaric and disgusting, even though I recognize that, since natural predators have been made scarce, wild herds must sometimes be culled for their own good.

I have not joined, and will not join, the NRA.

At the same time, I'm vehemently opposed to repealing the 2nd amendment.