Will you miss Barbara Boxer??? (San Francisco: condo, low crime, earthquake)

[mateo45]

Originally Posted by 1AngryTaxPayer

Your point? Making something illegal doesn't make it impossible to have. Conn banned them altogether and only a % of people turned them in. Same with NY.

As Many As One Million Armed New Yorkers Are About To Break The Law - Forbes

Evolution, we weren't going to hunt with a smoothbore musket forever.

So, the ? is, what do you do with your neighbor when they don't turn in or register their ar colt?

Right, just like "hunting" dumb critters with a modified military assault weapon and more widgets than a Predator movie, is supposed to be "manly" and "sporting"?!

[1AngryTaxPayer]

Originally Posted by mateo45

Right, just like you figure "hunting" dumb critters with a modified military assault weapon and more widgets than a Predator movie, is supposed to be "manly" and "sporting"?!

I don't hunt for sport. I hunt to eat. I don't give a hoot if someone thinks it's manly or not. Neither does my Daughter who is one of my main hunting partners. I do care about someone trying to control what tools I use to hunt with. Someone who appears to have been born in a mall and never left it.

[mateo45]

^ Hey, it's a real 'arms race" when you're dealing with Bambi… so why not play it safe and go for a bazooka (oh, wait, that's illegal too… dang those meddling Libs)?!!

[shooting4life]

Originally Posted by mateo45

^ Hey, it's a real 'arms race" when you're dealing with Bambi… so why not play it safe and go for a bazooka (oh, wait, that's illegal too… dang those meddling Libs)?!!

I really wish you would learn more about the topic at hand before posting.

Most traditional "hunting rifles" that you approve of are actually much more powerful than the evil "modified military assault rifle" (whatever that is), that you do not approve of.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by 1AngryTaxPayer

I don't hunt for sport. I hunt to eat. I don't give a hoot if someone thinks it's manly or not. Neither does my Daughter who is one of my main hunting partners. I do care about someone trying to control what tools I use to hunt with. Someone who appears to have been born in a mall and never left it.

No one needs to hunt to eat in our western culture anymore. Unfortunately. But you don't need to justify it to me anyway. Humans are omnivore hunters by nature. Denying our nature is frustrating. The vibrant philosopher Jose Ortega y Gasset wrote brilliantly on the topic in his Meditations on Hunting.

If anyone is interested in a truly thoughtful exploration of the primal function, the book is available in numerous editions:
http://www.amazon.com/Meditations-Hu.../dp/1932098534
About Gasset:
José Ortega y Gasset - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That all said, there's no particular sense to the modernization of hunting as manufacturers have bastardized it in order to reach into peoples' wallets by marketing hunting in bizarre psychological inculcations.

As one who used modern high powered weaponry in the worst of hunting applications, I agree that even the smaller versions are mostly manifestations of immature fantasies implanted by marketers hell bent on enriching themselves - not on serving any primal human drives.

Same holds for what has happened to equipment for the sport of bow hunting / archery. Although there, at least, the stalking and nature of the kill, tracking the wounded animal through the brush as it seeks it's final refuge, etc., remains pretty close to real essential spirit.

In any case, I doubt Barbara Boxer has read Ortega - or goes hunting

[shooting4life]

Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth

Really? What about the 1830's law that said Indian tribes are sovereign nations? Where's that in the Constitution? What's the Constitutional basis for that? Prez Andrew Jackson wasn't too happy about that one. He defied it, and ran the southeastern tribes off to Oklahoma, after famously saying, "[Chief Justice] John Marshall has made his law. Now let him enforce it!". What about the one that said Indian preference hiring is the law under certain circumstances, ruled in the mid 1960's? What about the one that said "separate but equal" education is ok, later reversed in Brown vs. Board of Education? How could 2 completely opposing decisions both be Constitutional?

They don't just rule by fiat, they flip-flop all over the place. What about the one that said tribal courts aren't allowed to prosecute non-members of the tribe living in their community? What happened to the "sovereign nations" deal? Since when doesn't a local court have jurisdiction over local residents? What's the Constitutional precedent for that? What's any precedent for that? There isn't one. What about the law the Supremes made that said the US Constitution doesn't apply on Indian reservations? Did you know that? You have no Constitutional rights on rez. That has no basis in the Constitution.

They don't make laws? Really?

Those are all rulings on laws passed by congress and signed by the president.

No one is saying that SCOTUS has made 100% correct decisions, but they are not making law.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by shooting4life

Humans can handle more freedome than they have now. We are over regulated and over burdened. Even worse than the laws is the regulations passed by the unchecked "4th" branch of government like the epa which can destroy people's lives.

I sympathize with the spirit of what you are saying. Entirely. Were it only true in reality. But, alas, it is not. The larger and more complex a society becomes, unfortunately, the more it requires extremes of regulation. The nature of certain animals is to be opportunistic to extraordinary extremes. Raccoons come to mind, as well as all primates - including humans. Lots of insects too. Ever try to stop a raccoon from getting into your stuff? Clever bastards. Monkeys too, for sure. And who are the cleverest monkeys of all?

If every kind of absolutely foolproof locking latch isn't used, if every window and door is not completely secured, if every shingle and floorboard isn't fully backed and screwed down - the coon WILL eat your breakfast.

If every possible angle and detail of what is allowable or not isn't spelled out with consequences, people WILL find a way to circumvent each other's rights and properties and interests.

Damn shame we're so slippery sharp in nefarious ways. But I guess it comes with the territory of being clever survivors of extraordinary magnitude.

[shooting4life]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

I sympathize with the spirit of what you are saying. Entirely. Were it only true in reality. But, alas, it is not. The larger and more complex a society becomes, unfortunately, the more it requires extremes of regulation. The nature of certain animals is to be opportunistic to extraordinary extremes. Raccoons come to mind, as well as all primates - including humans. Lots of insects too. Ever try to stop a raccoon from getting into your stuff? Clever bastards. Monkeys too, for sure. And who are the cleverest monkeys of all?

If every kind of absolutely foolproof locking latch isn't used, if every window and door is not completely secured, if every shingle and floorboard isn't fully backed and screwed down - the coon WILL eat your breakfast.

If every possible angle and detail of what is allowable or not isn't spelled out with consequences, people WILL find a way to circumvent each other's rights and properties and interests.

Damn shame we're so slippery sharp in nefarious ways. But I guess it comes with the territory of being clever survivors of extraordinary magnitude.

So we are now the same as raccoons.

The regulations are so bad, when you call the government for help understanding the regulations they passed, they won't tell you what to do because they do not even understand the regulations.

You should try calling one of the thousands of regulatory agencies and ask for advice interpreting a regulation they made. You'll probably get an answer to the tune of "you should probably get a lawyer"

Even the IRS cannot be held accountable for the advice they give you on completing your taxes.


Regulatory agencies go unchecked, they rule by fiat, with leaders who were not ellected nor held accountable.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by shooting4life

So we are now the same as raccoons.

Pretty much. Yep.

Originally Posted by shooting4life

The regulations are so bad, when you call the government for help understanding the regulations they passed, they won't tell you what to do because they do not even understand the regulations.

You should try calling one of the thousands of regulatory agencies and ask for advice interpreting a regulation they made. You'll probably get an answer to the tune of "you should probably get a lawyer"

Even the IRS cannot be held accountable for the advice they give you on completing your taxes.


Regulatory agencies go unchecked, they rule by fiat, with leaders who were not ellected nor held accountable.

I do not dispute your frustrations. Nevertheless, what I wrote is the reality.

[Ruth4Truth]

Originally Posted by shooting4life

Those are all rulings on laws passed by congress and signed by the president. .

No, they aren't rulings on laws passed by Congress and signed by the President. The first three decisions the Supreme Court made on Indian affairs, known as the "Marshall Trilogy", all the result of cases the Cherokees brought to the court, were more or less fashioned out of thin air, and did not have the support of the President, who used his power as Commander-In-Chief of the army to bulldoze right through the law, and remove the court's "sovereign nations" west, to Oklahoma, so that Georgia and other states could get at the land and the gold that was there. Indian Preference Hiring has nothing to do with any law passed by Congress. Nor does the court decision on the Constitution not applying on reservations. How could Supreme Court decisions upholding school segregation, then suddenly doing an about-face, and striking down its own earlier decision, be based on a law Congress passed? How could two laws that are in direct opposition to one another both be justifiable by the Constitution or Congressional law?

Real life is a lot different from what we were taught in highschool civics class. It's not all neat and tidy following the rules they want you to believe government and the justice system follow.