|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
July 23, 2009, 09:31 PM | #26 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 18, 2008
Posts: 173
|
For the record, I never understood why people enjoy watching videos of hunting.. as if it's some kind of sport.
|
July 23, 2009, 10:45 PM | #27 | |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,850
|
Quote:
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
|
July 24, 2009, 07:25 AM | #28 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 20, 2005
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 2,084
|
Quote:
There is to me way to much emphasis on the kill(killing) in so many of those shows. Of course maybe I am the delusional one that is only in it for the chase
__________________
Gbro CGVS For the message of the Cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, But to us who are being saved, It Is The Power Of God. 1Corinthians 1-18 |
|
July 24, 2009, 08:47 AM | #29 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 6, 2009
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 761
|
Quote:
__________________
"I assert that nothing ever comes to pass without a cause." Jonathan Edwards |
|
July 24, 2009, 09:19 AM | #30 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 21, 2009
Location: West Central Missouri
Posts: 2,592
|
I would be very worried. The original poster has a point. Our government does a lot of irrational things and we support them. More people are killed by automobiles than guns every year, but they would rather outlaw the guns. Our state governments want to re-introduce predator animals back into the wilds...
Check out this guy, who is being nominated for a very important, but un-elected position in our government. http://www.onenewsnow.com/Politics/D...aspx?id=614400 |
July 24, 2009, 09:30 AM | #31 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 6, 2006
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 3,324
|
No more taxidermy. Museums of natural history will have to store their animal mounts.
__________________
Proud NRA Benefactor Member |
July 24, 2009, 11:10 AM | #32 | |
Junior member
Join Date: September 7, 2008
Posts: 21
|
Quote:
Federal jurisdiction is very limited to specific subject matter - interstate commerce. |
|
July 24, 2009, 02:48 PM | #33 |
member
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
|
Uh... If my growing wheat in my own yard for my own consumption is "interstate commerce", I wouldn't be too quick to assume that the mere lack of actual interstate commerce will save you. Wickard is well-established law. It wouldn't be much of a stretch to use the same test here.
|
July 24, 2009, 04:04 PM | #34 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 13, 2005
Posts: 498
|
I wonder if the anti's realize this would bite them in the azz too. No more ads depicting starving dogs or horses. It will put a serious dent in their ability shock the public into thinking their way.
|
July 24, 2009, 06:29 PM | #35 |
Junior member
Join Date: September 7, 2008
Posts: 21
|
That's a very valid point dakotashooter2.
Bartholomew, that is true only if such activity, if left unregulated by Congress, would undercut already existing similar interstate commercial activity. I seriously doubt that there is such a federally regulated activity to compete with though. Last edited by stija; July 24, 2009 at 08:54 PM. Reason: addition |
July 24, 2009, 06:33 PM | #36 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 17, 2007
Location: SOUTHEAST, OHIO
Posts: 5,970
|
Just think, no more hunting/fishing shows, mags., artwork(paintings) some old and famous depicting historic buffalo hunts that helped give the white man a reason to put the Indians on the reservations. Seems as though I remember many of those type of pictures in the school history books. Don`t you dare take a pics. of that stringer of crappy/bass you and your favorite loved one just caught so you can remember that special fishing trip years down the road. The older I get, the more this kinda BS makes me sick:barf:.
|
July 28, 2009, 12:55 PM | #37 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 19, 2007
Location: Montmorency Co, MI
Posts: 1,551
|
""Nonsense. We have the best senators and congressmen that money can buy. But anyway, what do you expect them to do? Making laws is what they are there for. An appropriations bill is a law, in this sense""
AND way too many members of the US Congress are lawyers. Laws are written with 'hookers' in them-that is to hook lots of people. Not reading bills is another way to hook. |
July 28, 2009, 04:24 PM | #38 | |
member
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
|
Quote:
1. Congress may regulate local matters that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce - J&L, Darby, Wickard 2. Congress has to have a rational basis to do so - Darby 3. Local effects may be aggregated to reach the substantial effects level - Wickard 4. Congress may regulate items that cross state lines – Darby (older cases too) 5. Congress may regulate the instrumentalities of interstate commerce – Shreveport rates 6. Congress may regulate items that facilitate commerce or are within the channels of commerce –Heart of Atlanta I don't see any exception for what you describe. What case or law led you to your conclusion? |
|
April 20, 2010, 01:40 PM | #39 |
member
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
|
UPDATE: Today the Supreme Court struck down this law in an 8-1 decision titled United States vs. Stevens - which given the partisan divide lately should speak volumes about the problem with this law.
The Volokh Conspiracy has some excellent discussion about the case, as usual. The NRA also played a role in this case as one of the amici briefs. The lone dissenting vote was Justice Alito, who favored interpreting the term "animal cruelty" very narrowly so as to exclude hunting, fishing and other activites and upholding the statute. Still reading parts; but this is an interesting opinion touching on everything from hunting & fishing, to First Amendment, to Presidential signing statements. Chief Justice Roberts got in some nice shots about the Justice Department promising to enforce the law narrowly, even though it was written more broadly Last edited by Bartholomew Roberts; April 20, 2010 at 01:50 PM. |
April 20, 2010, 06:48 PM | #40 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 22, 2009
Location: Washington State
Posts: 1,037
|
Thank you for that update.
__________________
Treat everyone you meet with dignity and respect....but have a plan to kill them just in case. |
April 20, 2010, 06:51 PM | #41 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 20, 2007
Location: South Western OK
Posts: 3,112
|
I do not have a problem with hunting videos.
The SCOTUS decision examined: http://www.scotusblog.com/2010/04/fi...t-left-intact/ |
April 20, 2010, 06:56 PM | #42 |
Staff In Memoriam
Join Date: October 31, 2007
Location: Western Florida panhandle
Posts: 11,069
|
Awesome RULING!!!! Now them pics of me kickin' little cuddly kitties, fish with their face near ripped free from my tuggin' on the hook are safe!!! Not to mention images of hogs with bulldogs hanging from each ear with a curr dog on their rump are protected as they should be!!!
Brent |
April 27, 2010, 04:48 PM | #43 |
Junior Member
Join Date: April 11, 2010
Posts: 6
|
Watching those hunting shows back on TNN years and years ago actually gave me a feeling of what goes on in the hunters mind.
One show I saw, the host brought his 11yr old son out with him. the son got a buck. It took him 2 shots, he didn't hit at "the kill point". So the Host was up with the buck and his son and explained to the camera as well as his son about respecting the animal's rights. So as yes it was game, and was hunted and killed for food (and display I'm sure), but the respect came that the animal should never EVER suffer and that the body must be respected as well because you don't want to shoot an animal full of holes to watch it suffer as it dies. You want it to be killed in 1 shot and not feel anything as it passes. I was pretty amazed at that philosophy and have never forgot that. I doubt I'll ever go game hunting, but if I ever did, I'd make sure to respect that animal, for it will be feeding my family as well as possibly providing other means for survival. |
April 27, 2010, 05:02 PM | #44 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague Cnty, TX
Posts: 12,717
|
I have no problem with the banning of pictures showing animal cruelty. The original picture does not show any such thing. For all practical purposes, it shows a guy with a gun and a flying bird. No act of cruelty has occurred in any form.
For that matter, if a picture does show that an animal has been killed, it would be up to those pressing charges that the particular animal was killed in a cruel manner which would involve some onsight forensics, I would believe.
__________________
"If you look through your scope and see your shoe, aim higher." -- said to me by my 11 year old daughter before going out for hogs 8/13/2011 My Hunting Videos https://www.youtube.com/user/HornHillRange |
April 27, 2010, 05:10 PM | #45 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 26, 2005
Location: The Bluegrass
Posts: 9,142
|
What if PETA wanted to show the butchering of baby seals with clubs in a documentary? They would likely be breaking the law showing a "cruel" death. And, if you say it's okay for some purposes but not others, you are regulating speech because of it's purpose. Then it would be okay to ban flag burning as a protest but allow it when destroying one out of respect when it becomes worn.
|
April 28, 2010, 04:26 PM | #46 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 27, 2005
Location: Crescent Iowa
Posts: 2,971
|
Quote:
|
|
April 28, 2010, 11:49 PM | #47 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 29, 2007
Location: Everett, WA
Posts: 6,126
|
Cruelty to animals is pretty vague and that's probably where this case failed.
The prosecutors should have tried a version of people not being able to profit from illegal acts after the fact. Like Mark Chapman or John Hinckley not being able to profit from books about their deeds. There are some interesting ramifications to the verdict. What other illegal acts can be legally filmed and marketed? |
April 29, 2010, 08:31 AM | #48 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 9, 2002
Posts: 1,936
|
I was watching a show yesterday on which a guy with a bow shot a deer, which took about two hops and then fell dead. Getting the opportunity to make that shot and actually doing it are not easy, so it's an impressive skill to me. Why was I watching it? I dunno, best thing on and I was eating my lunch in front of a TV.
|
April 29, 2010, 09:47 AM | #49 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
Last night, I watched Robot Chicken that had a segment on 'weasel stomping day'. It was claymation. Weasels were stomped by folks with big boots.
Thus, the law would have protected us from the evils of satirical claymation.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
|
|