Tried to tell you all that this dude was poison...he is. Now he is saying that all "sport" hunting should be illegal (his words, not mine)

Listen in and form your own opinion:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=116_1253125185

BTW, I don't frequent that site...it's just where the video is posted. Definitely worth a listen to.

Mike

It's shitstains like Sunstein that keep me voting Republican.
Yes there are plenty of f*ckups with an R next to their name, but the absolute facts are that virtually all of the treehuggers, animal rights activists, anti hunting and antigunner groups seek shelter under the democratic umbrella.
F*ckk that guy.

Mike... if you listen closely he says "We DON'T have to ban hunting I suggest, if there isn't a purpose other than sport and fun, that shouldn't be illegal..." then of course the video is edited.

I suggest finding a transcript of the entire speech so you can see what context this snippet is intended to be in... before passing final judgement.

Also... HOW exactly would one of Obama's czars go about actually banning hunting?

Think about it rationally for a moment...

Exactly Mark. This video was edited and engineered in a manner so that the real message is taken out of context, to feed the RWWJ's fears that Obama and his cabinet are going to strip all Americans of their basic rights.

It's weak.

Did you get this in a chain letter?


Next.

Editing aside boys.
I'm not wrong as to which is the party of choice for those who DO want to end hunting.
Am I ?????

YEP!

'Specially seein's as how NEITHER party wants to ACTUALLY ban hunting.

Sunstein gave a speech at Harvard in 2007 musing about animal cruelty. He has since publicly re-affirmed his support for hunting and the Second Ammendment.

Too many people LIKE and participate in hunting for it ever to be banned outright... and an Information czar certainly doesn't have the power to do anything.

More Glenn Beck fear-mongerin'... that's all.

I'd agree with you Salmonella that if there is a party who would ever propose an end to hunting, that it would likey be the Democratic party.

But it will never happen.

Book it.

Sunstein is an extreme left of center attorney with views that border on socialism. Read what a fellow colleague has to say about the guy.

The Libertarian
Sunstein's Second Bill Of Rights?
Richard A. Epstein, 09.15.09, 12:00 AM ET


This past week marked the belated Senate confirmation of my former colleague, Cass R. Sunstein, as the head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, which helps coordinate the many regulatory activities in the modern welfare state.

Sunstein is by any fair account the most prominent, versatile and influential left-of-center legal academic in the U.S. His nomination has been supported, sensibly enough, by The Wall Street Journal, which also sees him correctly as one of the more conservative players in the Obama administration. But apparently, its wise counsel did not slow down key Republican senators who held up his nomination on at least three separate occasions, in part because of their worries that his view on hunting and animal care make him an extremist on animal rights.

Regrettably, they seem more influenced by the caricature of his position on the American Conservative Union Web site and Glenn Beck's brutal hosing this past July that also denounced Sunstein for his passionate support of Franklin D. Roosevelt's Second Bill of Rights. This sad tale has been well recounted by David Weigel in the Washington Independent. Therefore, it is perhaps no surprise that Sunstein's was confirmed was by the embarrassingly narrow vote of 57-to-40.

These unseemly outbursts of ignorant incivility have ripped at our country's frayed political fabric. One oft-neglected cost of these hysterical tactics is that they discredit ordinary academics, like myself, who strongly disagree with the views that Sunstein has so consistently and elegantly defended. Quite simply, it is not nice to be drowned out by the childish arguments of my supposed allies. The correct political stance is to give President Obama wide latitude in choosing his subordinates, and then to dispute them on the key substantive issues.

Here is how I would go about that task with Roosevelt's Second Bill of Rights, which is so politically dangerous in large part because of its elegant simplicity and intuitive appeal. Let me first quote the central passage of the Second Bill of Rights, which lays out the rights "established for all--regardless of station, race or creed." Roosevelt says:

"The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;

The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return, which will give him and his family a decent living;

The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

The right of every family to a decent home;

The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health."

What's not to like? Quite simply, it is Roosevelt's treacherous transformation of human aspirations into enforceable legal rights. There are two enormous gaps in that chain of reasoning. First, it does not specify the persons who must bear the correlative duties to this expanded set of rights. Nor can we duck this problem by imposing the obligations on the state or government, which consists, of course, of all those original right bearers in a different capacity.

So in the end we can't maintain the universality of Roosevelt's claim: We have to distinguish between those of us who count as "the people" and everyone else, those who don't really count at all. If we all have the rights to decent jobs, then workers have the right to form unions, regardless of the consequences to employers, shareholders and the public at large. If farmers have the right to a decent living, the rest of us have to suffer Roosevelt's deadly double of agricultural subsidies and state-sponsored crop cartels.

A second difficulty is as acute as the first. Who fills in the content of the right by telling us what counts as a decent price or a remunerative wage? In a world of major uncertainty, these questions have no fixed answer. But in a political setting, we devised schemes then to assure living wages to autoworkers, only to see Roosevelt's rickety structure comes crashing down on our heads. But do we learn humility from failure? Of course not, if we think that now is the time to implement a regime of positive rights to health care--oops, to health care insurance--funded by punitive and self-destructive taxes on the rich.

In short, there is no way to translate Roosevelt's--or Sunstein's vision--into sustainable social practices. But that's just what the First Bill of Rights can do with its bloodless protection of private property and freedom of contract, speech and religion. Now we can specify the correlative duties with precision: keep off the property of others, and don't meddle in their agreements. Follow these rules and you can stimulate investment and reward hard labor. By keeping our aspirations modest, we can keep our achievements high--which is why we don't want to undermine the first Bill of Rights by adopting the second.

Richard A. Epstein is the James Parker Hall distinguished service professor of law, the University of Chicago; the Peter and Kirsten Bedford senior fellow, the Hoover Institution; and a visiting professor at New York University Law School. He writes a weekly column for Forbes.com.

Moonbat whacko. Smart guy, but wow.

Did you not see this part Andy?

Not sure I'm gonna book it.
Just as with ever spiraling firearm restrictions, I see it here in California first.
They start with the "trophy animals" Mountain lion, bears, wolves.
Something the average person considers "endangered".
Then get a ballot iniatitive started state by state,
They did that here back in 1990 with prop 119, protecting mountain lions.
It passed.
Now the state kills and burries more lions on depredation permits than they would have with a yearly hunt.



But that's OK as long as no hunter took pleasure in the kill.....Right?

Next?
Who knows?
They tried to ban dove hunting back east some time ago.
We are fighting tooth & nail over this wolf thing too.
Nationally, we hunters are a tiny minority.
We will lose to the urban dwelling masses every time if it comes down to a vote.
Hunting is as precious to me as steelhead fishing is to you guys.
I don't want guys like Sunstein in any powerful government position.
Period.

No one's going to ban hunting...turn on all the lights and check under your bed, if you dare...there's no boogey man there.

Fish on...

Todd

You guys need to get a room.
.
.
.
A rubber one.

Faux rage is all the rage.

Ya know, I heard for years that trapping would never be banned, and that the Gov't would accept science over the "Twisted-by-PETA" emotions of the uninformed public.

Well...didn't quite go that way, now did it? As a long-line mink/beaver trapper I got left with a ton of fur handling gear along with 30 dozen traps. Not to mention a big chunk of annual income is gone - right along with the wonderful experiences of working a PNW wintertime trapline.

I'm much older now, but I sure do miss spending the day running a 100 set mink line! Unfortunately, if I set traps for mink come late Dec. I would most likely be crucified for it...

These kinds of things don't happen in one fell swoop KK, they happen in little bits, here and there, and finally the RIGHT has been lost completely. Then, people look around wondering...thinking..."THEY" said it would never happen!!

ISO

Is trapping with body gripping traps banned in WA now Mike?

Can you still use snares?

Could trapping have been banned for conservation reasons? (not enough minks and beavers left)

Market hunting is now banned... and I think that's a GOOD thing!

Contrary to popular right-wing mythology... not EVERYTHING is an insidiously evil liberal plot against good ol' fashioned, red-blooded, true blue conservative 'mercans.

What happened to the post about ACORN's pimps and underaged hookers. That is a good story. And by story, I mean story.

Trapping banned here in Cali and in Colorado too.
The legal terminology is "any body gripping device".
I suppose that includes the common mousetrap as well.

Oh, and don't think today's sportsmen condone market hunting.
Isn't commercial fishing the same thing?

Sure. Did ya read the "Rules"?

Quoting from the WDFW Trapping regs..:

"IT IS UNLAWFUL TO:

Trap for wild animals with body-gripping traps EXCEPT by permit to abate an animal problem under WAC 232-12-142. This includes, but not limited to, padded foothold traps, unpadded foot-hold traps, all snares, and conibear type traps. "

http://wdfw.wa.gov/wlm/game/trapping/index.htm

Ok...now tell me what kind of trap to use, a LEGAL one, that will capture and hold (or better yet kill immediately or drown) a 30 lb. River Otter? Or a 60 lb. Beaver..???

What's up KK? Now that I proved you wrong with facts (and not personal attacks on your or others character) you don't want to reply any longer?

Truth be told, now you can see how you CAN lose your rights. Just let Obama's minions start a campaign to outlaw it and you'll see how fast your hunting rights go away.

Mike

Dude, you crack me up...

Your replies are about as predictable as tomorrows sunrise...and you got nuthin' of any value to say....so, you fill in all the blanks with your personal attacks and related tripe.

Are you a lawyer, by chance? Seems you got nuthin' but a mouth and and arsehole (aka: keyboard) and apparently those two are fully interchangeable. Boring as hell reading the same stuff over and over again...



Same goes for that hunting license of yours (the same one you might lose due to that corksoaker Czar in DC).

BTW, hate to ruin your delusion, but you don't have two barrels to give to anyone......just one rusty one that squeaks when you try to fire it... (all you hear is a "click" and some diarrhea flows out the end... )

I'll pass on the clamshell traps. All they ever do is give a beaver a bad case of pneumonia as they are stuck for as long as 24 hrs., outside in the cold and no place to move. VERY INhumane way to treat a good critter, IMO.

I think we can end this thread now...but you'll have to get in the last "word", won't ya?

ISO