Probably not but they are the only environmentalists I have ever met who think that they can do good by living the way that the annoing ones only preach.
The vast majority of people who constantly preach about how environmentally aware they are really are nothing but hypocrites.
I just checked. Actually, lead shot for waterfowl hunting was banned in the U.S., way back in 1991! You guys did it before we did.
Probably not but they are the only environmentalists I have ever met who think that they can do good by living the way that the annoing ones only preach.
The vast majority of people who constantly preach about how environmentally aware they are really are nothing but hypocrites.
But there are respectable environmental organisations, that oppose hunting wildfowl in conserving the wetlands, with guns or without:
They don't really seem to say what they do except collect money to take a position.
The only environmental organization I have ever given to is the Nature Conservancy because the money goes into buying what they want to protect rather than solely into the pocket of some SUV driving, dreadlocked, stoner who wants to come and tell me that I need to ride a damn bike to work every day, quit eating meat and quit smoking or he won't let me get on the fucking Metro.
I agree that one doesn't need to hunt to conserve, and that wasn't zstillings' point. The point is, hunters do a lot of good conservation work in North America.
I agree that one doesn't need to hunt to conserve, and that wasn't zstillings' point. The point is, hunters do a lot of good conservation work in North America.
Exactly my point. Thank you. And sorry for the tangent but I was late to a meeting the other day because of that exact scenario that my rant was about.
I agree that one doesn't need to hunt to conserve, and that wasn't zstillings' point. The point is, hunters do a lot of good conservation work in North America.
Of course they do. If the wetlands go, the wildfowl die. You wouldn't be able to kill 'em, then.
Most hunters enjoy the wilderness as well. Even more than the city living tye dye wearing street preachers.
I'm sure. As the son of two Irish farming families, and with my own practical work experience in river conservation, I agree. But I think that one is one very shaky ground, defending gun ownership on "superior knowledge of the country", when people from the city and the country alike can argue otherwise.
I'm sure. As the son of two Irish farming families, with practical work experience in river conservation, I agree. But I think that one is one very shaky ground, defending gun ownership on "superior knowledge of the country", when people from the city and the country alike can argue otherwise.
Most country people here have a very practical view of guns ... They are tools, part of rural life. Somehow, they avoid becoming murderous scoundrels just the same.
I'm sure. As the son of two Irish farming families, and with my own practical work experience in river conservation, I agree. But I think that one is one very shaky ground, defending gun ownership on "superior knowledge of the country", when people from the city and the country alike can argue otherwise.
Once again, I am very sorry for the rant. I have no intention of lumping you in with the smelly kids who blocked my way to my meeting the other day just because I wouldn't sit and listen to their little preaching session. I am just reminded of that with this debate about hunting.
Most hunters are very good about following limit laws and not taking more than they consume. Most are also very concerned about losing their camp-sites, wetlands, etc... because they love being there. It is not only for the sport of hunting.
Well, let's be constructive, here. How about far more stringent gun licence application laws, favouring licenced, rural huntsmen? Then we can take the ethical discussion about hunting, from there? Meanwhile, Mad Jack McMadd of Madtown, Maddest County, Maddington, is restricted from getting his hands on a sawn off.
According to fellow poster dunkman guns are to blame for the school shooting..which i agree that a gun was used in the school shooting that left an innocent teenager dead.
that sounds like you agree with me... you even admitted that a gun killed that girl... the mitigating circumstances that drove the retard to shoot that girl dont play a significant part really... he didnt throw a myspace at her and it exploded
see Finsburys analogy about Chapman... should the beatles be banned because Manson heard something weird? pointless and sensationalist nonsense aside... his mental state was the contributing factor.. had he no access to a gun he might just have wanked a lot over the monitor...
oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
I might add to my last point, sure, there'll always be a market for contraband weapons, run by big drug gangs and sold to smaller ones. But restricting gun ownership is surely a step in the right direction, especially in preventing loner types from going into schools, and shooting away.
Well, let's be constructive, here. How about far more stringent gun licence application laws, favouring licenced, rural huntsmen? Then we can take the ethical discussion about hunting, from there? Meanwhile, Mad Jack McMadd of Madtown, Maddest County, Maddington, is restricted from getting his hands on a sawn off.
I'm not sure I agree with actual licensing. I am all for background checks and those sorts of things but allowing the government to consistently add bureaucracy is never a good idea.
I might add to my last point, sure, there'll always be a market for contraband weapons, run by big drug gangs and sold to smaller ones. But restricting gun ownership is surely a step in the right direction, especially in preventing loner types from going into schools, and shooting away.
Sometimes though a step in the right direction completely defeats the purpose of what is intended. Handgun ownership in DC is illegal. We have one of the highest per capita murder rates in the country. Obviously this step is in no direction except to restrict the rights of law abiding citizens.
Most hunters are very good about following limit laws and not taking more than they consume. Most are also very concerned about losing their camp-sites, wetlands, etc... because they love being there. It is not only for the sport of hunting.
I'm not trying to be a smart-ass, but if they love being in the wilderness why do they need to kill something? It confuses me that they love to be out there so they better kill an animal.
I'm not sure I agree with actual licensing. I am all for background checks and those sorts of things but allowing the government to consistently add bureaucracy is never a good idea.
In issues such as healthcare, I agree. If a patient is ill, and their doctor recommends a consultant, bureaucrats shouldn't step in between them and do means tests, to clog the system. But that's an issue of a patient's right to treatment, something which is acknowledged in our free National Health Service, in the UK. But with the "right" to own a gun, something which kills or maims in the hands of an inexpert user, I think the more vetting, the better. We want to minimise all risk of accidents while hunting, surely? Dick Cheney would never get a licence, for a start!
I'm not trying to be a smart-ass, but if they love being in the wilderness why do they need to kill something? It confuses me that they love to be out there so they better kill an animal.
They enjoy living off of the nature as well. Like I said, most hunters do not kill what they can't consume. I'm sure you have hobbies and enjoy some activities that I see as unneeded. I will not come and try to take that away from you though just because it is not something that I fully enjoy.
Sometimes though a step in the right direction completely defeats the purpose of what is intended. Handgun ownership in DC is illegal. We have one of the highest per capita murder rates in the country. Obviously this step is in no direction except to restrict the rights of law abiding citizens.
Is that a sound argument for reintroducing handgun ownership? Or a reason for the authorities to work harder, to crack arms traffic?
In issues such as healthcare, I agree. If a patient is ill, and their doctor recommends a consultant, bureaucrats shouldn't step in between them and do means tests, to clog the system. But that's an issue of a patient's right to treatment, something which is acknowledged in our free National Health Service, in the UK. But with the "right" to own a gun, something which kills or maims in the hands of an inexpert user, I think the more vetting, the better. We want to minimise all risk of accidents while hunting, surely? Dick Cheney would never get a licence, for a start!
We have to accept that accidents will happen though. If we weren't willing to accept that we would have banned cars, bicycles, walking, etc...
I'm not trying to be a smart-ass, but if they love being in the wilderness why do they need to kill something? It confuses me that they love to be out there so they better kill an animal.
Most hunters I know love the outdoors and still go outdoors not during hunting season. They use the hunting for food for throughout the year. Every hunter I knows takes the meat back and uses it for cooking etc... I don't know of hunters that just go to kill and leave it there. They just prefer getting their meat directly from the source rather than going to the grocery store. Some enjoy the sporting nature of it. Some days you catch something and other days you dont, but you still enjoyed hanging out with friends.
make sure the fortune that you seek...is the fortune that you need
Is that a sound argument for reintroducing handgun ownership? Or a reason for the authorities to work harder, to crack arms traffic?
While authorities are working at curbing this violence (most around this city aren't very good at that by the way) people are being killed almost nightly. The fact of the matter here is that these laws would not be needed (the hindrance on the Constitutional Rights) if the murder laws were upheld. Just because someone yells "fire" in a crowded theater is no reason to repeal the Bill of Rights either.
We have to accept that accidents will happen though. If we weren't willing to accept that we would have banned cars, bicycles, walking, etc...
You don't necessarily drive with the intention to target and illiminate an object. You drive your car to town. That's an intransitive verbal construction, one that's important to note, because it's not an act of aggression where the object is prone. People can be killed by cars, but seeing as the purpose of the car was not to kill the road (since it's not alive, to start with), but to drive on it, then the extent of accident is high. (Unless someone is - very rarely - run over deliberately.) Now, you shoot something, with your gun. That's a transitive verbal construction. You are rendering something prone, defunct, dead or inert, which has more often than not been alive and healthy beforehand. If someone gets shot in a misfiring, the level of accident is less because the gun was fired with the intention to effect an act of aggression. Just the wrong object = person. The intent of the use of a car is, in the main, different from a gun, and therefore, the agent of a car accident is largely more mitigated by circumstance, than the agent of a gun accident.
Lots of factors come into play in the complex circumstances of a car accident. Surely, when you're out in the country, there are less obstacles to shooting straight and properly?
we better ban homes too since that's where most accidents occurr.
why do you people use poor sarcasm... see Finsburys post, its very very good..
there is a huge difference in someone dying whilst trying to iron something and standing in the bath at the same time and someone who is in mental turmoil and yet can still buy a gun legally and then go into a school and shoot someone
oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
But restricting gun ownership is surely a step in the right direction, especially in preventing loner types from going into schools, and shooting away.
Depends on what you mean by restriction. Preventing someone who is mentally unstable or who has a history of violent crime from owning a gun would be a good thing. Preventing someone who does not meet these criteria from owning a gun would do nothing beneficial.
why do you people use poor sarcasm... see Finsburys post, its very very good..
there is a huge difference in someone dying whilst trying to iron something and standing in the bath at the same time and someone who is in mental turmoil and yet can still buy a gun legally and then go into a school and shoot someone
exactly! accidents are one thing, weapons that can kill another person effortlessly are another.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Pretending that guns aren't causing any kind of problem in our country is naive. They're a huge problem as a matter of fact.
But I don't think simply banning them will solve the problem.
Think about the drug war.. We ban something it's just going to come into our country illegally and boost the mob or whoever happens to take advantage of the situation.
Comments
I just checked. Actually, lead shot for waterfowl hunting was banned in the U.S., way back in 1991! You guys did it before we did.
I had no idea. I used to hunt pheasant, quail and dove. We would just buy what they had at the store.
But there are respectable environmental organisations, that oppose hunting wildfowl in conserving the wetlands, with guns or without:
http://www.wwt.org.uk/Research/WildlifeConservation.asp
They don't really seem to say what they do except collect money to take a position.
The only environmental organization I have ever given to is the Nature Conservancy because the money goes into buying what they want to protect rather than solely into the pocket of some SUV driving, dreadlocked, stoner who wants to come and tell me that I need to ride a damn bike to work every day, quit eating meat and quit smoking or he won't let me get on the fucking Metro.
I agree that one doesn't need to hunt to conserve, and that wasn't zstillings' point. The point is, hunters do a lot of good conservation work in North America.
Exactly my point. Thank you. And sorry for the tangent but I was late to a meeting the other day because of that exact scenario that my rant was about.
Of course they do. If the wetlands go, the wildfowl die. You wouldn't be able to kill 'em, then.
Most hunters enjoy the wilderness as well. Even more than the city living tye dye wearing street preachers.
I'm sure. As the son of two Irish farming families, and with my own practical work experience in river conservation, I agree. But I think that one is one very shaky ground, defending gun ownership on "superior knowledge of the country", when people from the city and the country alike can argue otherwise.
Most country people here have a very practical view of guns ... They are tools, part of rural life. Somehow, they avoid becoming murderous scoundrels just the same.
Once again, I am very sorry for the rant. I have no intention of lumping you in with the smelly kids who blocked my way to my meeting the other day just because I wouldn't sit and listen to their little preaching session. I am just reminded of that with this debate about hunting.
Most hunters are very good about following limit laws and not taking more than they consume. Most are also very concerned about losing their camp-sites, wetlands, etc... because they love being there. It is not only for the sport of hunting.
that sounds like you agree with me... you even admitted that a gun killed that girl... the mitigating circumstances that drove the retard to shoot that girl dont play a significant part really... he didnt throw a myspace at her and it exploded
see Finsburys analogy about Chapman... should the beatles be banned because Manson heard something weird? pointless and sensationalist nonsense aside... his mental state was the contributing factor.. had he no access to a gun he might just have wanked a lot over the monitor...
I'm not sure I agree with actual licensing. I am all for background checks and those sorts of things but allowing the government to consistently add bureaucracy is never a good idea.
Sometimes though a step in the right direction completely defeats the purpose of what is intended. Handgun ownership in DC is illegal. We have one of the highest per capita murder rates in the country. Obviously this step is in no direction except to restrict the rights of law abiding citizens.
In issues such as healthcare, I agree. If a patient is ill, and their doctor recommends a consultant, bureaucrats shouldn't step in between them and do means tests, to clog the system. But that's an issue of a patient's right to treatment, something which is acknowledged in our free National Health Service, in the UK. But with the "right" to own a gun, something which kills or maims in the hands of an inexpert user, I think the more vetting, the better. We want to minimise all risk of accidents while hunting, surely? Dick Cheney would never get a licence, for a start!
They enjoy living off of the nature as well. Like I said, most hunters do not kill what they can't consume. I'm sure you have hobbies and enjoy some activities that I see as unneeded. I will not come and try to take that away from you though just because it is not something that I fully enjoy.
Is that a sound argument for reintroducing handgun ownership? Or a reason for the authorities to work harder, to crack arms traffic?
We have to accept that accidents will happen though. If we weren't willing to accept that we would have banned cars, bicycles, walking, etc...
Most hunters I know love the outdoors and still go outdoors not during hunting season. They use the hunting for food for throughout the year. Every hunter I knows takes the meat back and uses it for cooking etc... I don't know of hunters that just go to kill and leave it there. They just prefer getting their meat directly from the source rather than going to the grocery store. Some enjoy the sporting nature of it. Some days you catch something and other days you dont, but you still enjoyed hanging out with friends.
we better ban homes too since that's where most accidents occurr.
While authorities are working at curbing this violence (most around this city aren't very good at that by the way) people are being killed almost nightly. The fact of the matter here is that these laws would not be needed (the hindrance on the Constitutional Rights) if the murder laws were upheld. Just because someone yells "fire" in a crowded theater is no reason to repeal the Bill of Rights either.
You don't necessarily drive with the intention to target and illiminate an object. You drive your car to town. That's an intransitive verbal construction, one that's important to note, because it's not an act of aggression where the object is prone. People can be killed by cars, but seeing as the purpose of the car was not to kill the road (since it's not alive, to start with), but to drive on it, then the extent of accident is high. (Unless someone is - very rarely - run over deliberately.) Now, you shoot something, with your gun. That's a transitive verbal construction. You are rendering something prone, defunct, dead or inert, which has more often than not been alive and healthy beforehand. If someone gets shot in a misfiring, the level of accident is less because the gun was fired with the intention to effect an act of aggression. Just the wrong object = person. The intent of the use of a car is, in the main, different from a gun, and therefore, the agent of a car accident is largely more mitigated by circumstance, than the agent of a gun accident.
Lots of factors come into play in the complex circumstances of a car accident. Surely, when you're out in the country, there are less obstacles to shooting straight and properly?
why do you people use poor sarcasm... see Finsburys post, its very very good..
there is a huge difference in someone dying whilst trying to iron something and standing in the bath at the same time and someone who is in mental turmoil and yet can still buy a gun legally and then go into a school and shoot someone
Depends on what you mean by restriction. Preventing someone who is mentally unstable or who has a history of violent crime from owning a gun would be a good thing. Preventing someone who does not meet these criteria from owning a gun would do nothing beneficial.
Why do you disregard logical arguments? Its an equally valid question, my friend.
exactly! accidents are one thing, weapons that can kill another person effortlessly are another.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
But I don't think simply banning them will solve the problem.
Think about the drug war.. We ban something it's just going to come into our country illegally and boost the mob or whoever happens to take advantage of the situation.
http://www.wishlistfoundation.org
Oh my, they dropped the leash.
Morgan Freeman/Clint Eastwood 08' for President!
"Make our day"