Hunting banned?

[calsdad]

I had somebody asking me today if I had heard anything about there being an effort to ban hunting. I told them I thought I remembered reading something recently about something along those lines - but I could not remember any details.

I figured the NES collective brain trust could give me an education on whether there is something going on I haven't heard about - and I will pass the info on to the person who asked me.

 

[Jose]

Where?

American antis don't work that way. They know they cannot get their aims done in one shot, so they work on incrementalism. Anti hunters in this country work to make hunting less accessible and more inconvenient to more people every year.

In particular, they LOVE to make it harder for young people to get into hunting.

In the UK, however, nothing would surprise me.

 

[Prepper]

I don't think so, but that would be interesting if the lefties are simultaneously saying "Don't worry we won't take your hunting rifle" (I HATE that! Its not about hunting!), when they are also saying "No hunting for you!"

 

[Fixxah]

This has been the goal of antis for as long as I can remember.

 

[calsdad]

I don't remember where I read or exactly what it said - but for some reason I seem to recall hearing about a bill or a treaty or conservation measure or some such thing that included wording in it that would effectively ban hunting.

I am not a hunter and quite frankly after the crap the Fudds have pulled around gun rights, when I read stuff like this I think to myself: "serves them right" - but I thought somebody might recall seeing or hearing about something like this.

The reason why I am asking is because somebody is asking me. I have noticed that when certain things happen about gun rights and related matters there are rumors that leak out to the public who are not as "connected" as we here on NES are - and sometimes all they hear is a distorted rumor and not what happened afterwards.

The thing that happened a few months back where the DOD decided to stop selling spent military brass to civilians was one such example. That whole thing got reversed in pretty short order - but there were rumors about this is Obama trying to shut down ammunition sales and so forth. Well about 3 weeks ago my father asked me about that because he had heard from some friends of theirs down in Florida that Obama was trying to shut down ammo sales because of some thing that the DOD did to stop brass sales. I gave him the entire run-down of what happened the way I understand it - and that was good. I am going to assume he passed this info on to the person who he heard the original rumor from.

 

[Lynne]

As much as some hunters don't seem to understand the need to defend ALL gun ownership, only their little world, if this is true and someone tries to ban hunting - ALL of us need to yell. If it happens to one segment, the rest will surely follow.

 

[Mark from MA]

Although I mostly bowhunt (alot), and am on most of the hunting sites and stuff. I haven't heard anything yet about banning hunting at federal tyoe level. Odds are it would never pass, and if it did states wouldn't abide by it States in most of the country make huge $$$ from out of state licenses sales and sales on equipment and supplies.

There is always some state anti group going after hunting at local levels...and always will be. PETA and local anti's snipe at stuff they think they can win......usually they do not because the facts of what hunters and wildlife conservation does positively rules over the nonsensical bullshit they spew.....

And believe me...there are gun hunters I've talked to that don't agree with ALL gun ownership.....I'm the first to tell them they might as well be Obama's best buddy.....we all need each other and need to stick together. I politely remind them just because they only hunt, that doesn't give them the right to decide what type of gun some law abiding citizen should own.....

 

[Cabinetman]

There is a guy named Cass Sunstein who the Administration is bringing in who wants ALL HUNTING banned, period, and suggests that animals can bring lawsuits against humans. I've read his papers just to be sure he is who others claim he is. He truely is a #1 Moonbat. He also suggests that babies 18 weeks old or younger can be euthanized and supports adding sterilizers to the drinking water. No fooling. Obama can surely pick 'em. You can read more about him here:


http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=104820



Obama czar pick: 'Raving animal rights nut'
Nominee advocated hunting ban, giving creatures right to file lawsuits

By Chelsea Schilling © 2009 WorldNetDaily

President Obama's friend and nominee for "regulatory czar" is a "raving animal rights nut" who has a secret agenda, according to one consumer group.

David Martosko, director of the Center for Consumer Freedom, told Fox News' Glenn Beck that Cass Sunstein, the Harvard Law professor nominated by the president to become the administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, is a "raving animal rights nut" and devout disciple of Peter Singer.

Singer, a bioethics professor at Princeton University, is a leader in the animal rights movement. He has also argued that abortion should be permissible because unborn babies as old as 18 weeks cannot feel pain or satisfaction.

Singer once explained his belief that, "killing a newborn baby is never equivalent to killing a person, that is, a being who wants to go on living."

In 1993, Singer said infants lack "rationality, autonomy and self-consciousness."

"Infants lack these characteristics," he said. "Killing them, therefore, cannot be equated with killing normal human beings, or any other self-conscious beings."

Martosko told Beck, "When you embrace this whole utilitarian idea, guess what else comes in the back door? Some animals, according to Singer, are worth more than some humans. A smart border collie, he says, is worth more, inherently, than a retarded child. … Cass Sunstein has embraced the whole enchilada. … He believes that animals should have some of the same rights as humans, in fact, greater rights than some people – including the right to follow lawsuits."

Sunstein has also supported outlawing sport hunting, giving animals the legal right to file lawsuits and using government regulations to phase out meat consumption.

The center quotes Sunstein's 2007 speech at Harvard University, where he argued in favor of "eliminating current practices such as … meat eating" and proposed: "We ought to ban hunting, I suggest, if there isn't a purpose other than sport and fun. That should be against the law. It's time now."

He also said, "[Humans'] willingness to subject animals to unjustified suffering will be seen … as a form of unconscionable barbarity… morally akin to slavery and the mass extermination of human beings."

According to the group, Sunstein was editor of the 2004 book "Animal Rights: Current Debates and New Directions" that said "animals should be permitted to bring suit, with human beings as their representatives … Any animals that are entitled to bring suit would be represented by (human) counsel, who would owe guardian-like obligations and make decisions, subject to those obligations, on their clients' behalf."

Martosko believes if Sunstein becomes "regulatory czar," he could "spell the end of animal agriculture, retail sales of meat and dairy foods, hunting and fishing, biomedical research, pet ownership, zoos and aquariums, traveling circuses, and countless other things Americans take for granted."

"Cass Sunstein owes Americans an honest appraisal of his animal rights agenda as America's top regulator," Martosko said in a statement. "Americans don't realize that the next four years could be full of bizarre initiatives plucked from the wildest dreams of the animal-rights fringe."

As WND reported, Sunstein has also been an outspoken proponent of tough restriction on gun sales and ownership and what has been characterized as a "Fairness Doctrine" for the Internet.

Revelations about Cass Sunstein's views on the "Fairness Doctrine" come in a book by Brad O'Leary, " Shut Up, America! The End of Free Speech." Sunstein also has argued in his prolific literary works that the Internet is anti-democratic because of the way users can filter out information of their own choosing.

Several senators have expressed concern about Sunstein's stances, and two "holds" have been placed on his nomination.

Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., blocked Sunstein's nomination last month.

"Chambliss worries that Sunstein's innovative legal views may someday lead to a farmer having to defend himself in court against a lawsuit filed on behalf of his chickens or pigs," The Hill reported.

Chambliss told The Hill that he blocked Sunstein's nomination because the law professor "has said that animals ought to have the right to sue folks."

However, Chambliss later removed his hold because he said Sunstein had assured him that he "would not take any steps to promote litigation on behalf of animals," and that he believes the "Second Amendment creates an individual right to possess guns for purposes of both hunting and self defense."

But Sunstein is now facing another hold on his Senate confirmation process.

According to Fox News, Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas., believes Sunstein could use the position to push a radical animal rights agenda and impose restrictions on agriculture and hunting.

"Sen. Cornyn finds numerous aspects of Mr. Sunstein's record troubling, specifically the fact that he wants to establish legal 'rights' for livestock, wildlife and pets, which would enable animals to file lawsuits in American courts," Cornyn spokesman Kevin McLaughlin, told the news organization.

The American Conservative Union is offering an opportunity for Americans to sound off on Sunstein's agenda. The organization has created a website called Stop Sunstein through which readers can submit petition signatures to members of the U.S. Senate. It also provides a 12-page list of Sunstein's most controversial quotes.

[You can read his complete list by going to the World Net Daily link.]

 

[Mark from MA]

Yeah....another Obama moonbat nutjob czar with a wacko agenda.....big suprise.....he can kiss the fattest part of my ass.

I guess the 6 deer I shoot in Southern CT this year may get a chance to sue me.

 

[redtail]

Does the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) or PETA ring any bells?

 

[RIFLEMAN1000]

Yeah....another Obama moonbat nutjob czar with a wacko agenda.....big suprise.....he can kiss the fattest part of my ass.

I guess the 6 deer I shoot in Southern CT this year may get a chance to sue me.

Not if you hit them in the right spot !!
They wont be talking to any Lawyers or anyone for that matter!

 

[Plural of Mongoose]

Yeah....another Obama moonbat nutjob czar with a wacko agenda.....big suprise.....he can kiss the fattest part of my ass.

I guess the 6 deer I shoot in Southern CT this year may get a chance to sue me.

That's why you always shoot the little ones first. Otherwise if you shoot the larger one first and the little one gets away, you may get sued and have to pay fawn support until someone else gets a chance to blast it.

 

[MattEvan]

There are no words to describe how I feel! this is sheer lunacy! gotta laugh when I think about animal lawsuits.

 

[Mark from MA]

Not if you hit them in the right spot !!
They wont be talking to any Lawyers or anyone for that matter!

LOL!!!!

 

[rather-b-shootin]

what about quality control? Hunting is an essential part of managing wildlife populations.

 

[ShadeWPI]

Animal's Rights advocates and Anti-Hunting groups don't think like that.

Example: Towns ban hunting because it's "dangerous". Now every few years the towns pay thousands of dollars to professional hunters to come in an cull the coyotes after they kill a few family pets. Instead of making money on licenses, they're spending money hiring non-local hunters to do a job the local hunters would gladdly pay to do.

Animal Rights groups don't think about the fact that the millions of cows in the US are only kept as live-stock and that if they could no longer be kept as live stock, they wouldn't be kept at all or that without constant human care they would rapidly starve.

Yes, this guy is a complete nut job, and we as concerned Americans need to push the media to make sure the People of the United States of America know this is the kind of "friend" President Barrack Obama will use political patronage to put in power.

I mean, with all his comments about the Vetting Process, I am sure his political advisors knew about this guys background.

 

[RI_John]

Speaking of animals being able to file suits, I was sued by a pig before. I didn't even know at the time the pig would have legal standing, let alone counsel. So animals filing suit isn't some futuristic thing, it happened to me in 1995!

The outcome? Luckily no kids were involved, but the stupid pig won and took me for most of my net worth at the time.

Kids in the their early 20's should not be allowed to get married!!

 

[Diggs]

They can try to ban *legal* hunting but they can never stop it. In fact, if the economy continues to worsen, I expect tasty critters to become rather endangered.

 

[Migmojo]

Does the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) or PETA ring any bells?

asswipes,pure and simple.