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

I posted about this Sonstien guy awhile ago, I got put in my place about how this guy was legit and everything I was referring to was BS.

The more we dismiss the little things as BS the more we find ourselves getting closer and closer to hyper-regulations of things we enjoy.

Of course it wont happen in one sweeping motion.. it will chip away at it slowly.

Increased fees, license lottery, hunting weapon regulations, shortened seasons, limited amount of grandfathered licenses... you will see these things "encouraged" by the boys in DC, and the lemmings in the State houses will fall in line. By the time it shows up on a board like this, envelopes have already changed hands and deals are done.

How about a gun tax on registered firearms, is that a "boogieman" as well?

How long do you think 30 round mags will be legal?

What about AR's and AK's?

What about handguns? Think those are not going to be at the business end of the current administrations finger shaking?

The Patriot Act is what Hoover would dress up in panties and dream about... it didn't happen until years after but it did in fact happen. Soon your medical records will be just as open to gov. eyes, another thing that "would never happen".

But hyper-regulation of firearms via hunting regs is a complete tin foil hat theory?

Take the pills, watch TV, and sleep.... sleeep....

Marz... there is one simple question that addresses all of your assertions.

Why?

Stam---That's pretty good analogy except you forgot to mention that the game kaykay got to start playing with in November is a chit stained dildo, not a gameboy......he jumps up and down screaming at the top of his lungs how cool his dildo is......but it's not...it's just gross....

Why?

Why what?

Why does this bother me?

Why would someone want to push these policies?

Why do I feel that the government should fear the people and not vise versa?

I dont see it as that simple but maybe you could enlighten?

Number 3 is kinda what I was getting at.

Why does the 'government' want to do away with guns?

Why does the 'government' want to do away with hunting?

Why do liberals supposedly want government to run every aspect of our daily lives?

What do they have to gain from these things?

That's what I'm trying to find... a rational, logical, factual explanation.

Because Glen Beck says they do.

End of discussion.

Fish on...

Todd

Unfortunately, I think you're right Todd.

1) It's easier to control an unarmed populace than it is to control and armed one.

2) Because it's cruel and mean to kill furry critters...even if you eat them.

3) Control.....duh.

4) See answer to #3



Now my questions....

Why did the founding fathers feel the need to include the 2nd ammendment if they didn't forsee the Gov't wanting to dis-arm the populace? Lucky guess?

Why have trapping, hound hunting and Bear baiting been removed, by and large, from the hunter as a mangement resource if they don't want to limit and eventually outlaw hunting? We now use tax dollars to manage a resource that created money before. Slippery slope...yadda..yadda

What have the Dems done to ensure or help promulgate the continuation of hunting as our heritage?

What have the Dems done to ensure the 2nd ammendment remains an intregal part of our free society?

OK, thats something I can expand on a bit.

As for me, I am, for the most part liberal but on the other hand I am generally against the constant pussification of the US. Just because I think one of the richest countries in the world should show more compassion for the meek and war for money doesnt make any sence at all, doesn't mean that I don't like riding dirt bikes, shooting, hunting, fishing etc.. the accessibility to do those things being reduced regularly is what bothers me.

We have come to a point where if it has proven to be undesirable by a group the first reaction is to remove it, regardless of what these actions may represent. As long as it can be lobbied as "safe" or "compassionate" it will gain approval. Just like the war in Iraq wasn't to gain a ME foothold with a military installation, it was to "{liberate the people from tyranny".

A lobby to remove hunting and restrict firearms translates to a initial feeling of safety and compassion to many (many more constituents than actually hunt or use / own firearms). What makes over zealous moms feel safer or the lady with 12 cats feel like all creatures are kept warm and fuzzy, is a win. Just like any politician that wants easy votes, throws "the children" into the speeches and the path of least resistance is to throw money / support at it. To dispute it garnishes a reaction of "child hater" or "scrooge".

Hunting is nowhere near the activity it was 20, 30, 40 years ago so why not get rid of it and let Bambi frolic in the flowery meadow, happy, safe and free?

Why not begin to regulate arms to a point that discourages the enthusiasts and makes people feel safer and that crime is being fought? Less accidental deaths right? Less crime right? More Bambi's frolicking with their wilderness friends right?

Honestly, that is just a notch below Jesus to many and votes and support will follow. Politicians are in the business of manipulating constituents, maybe not all, but most. The lobby to tax registered guns has already reared its head, do you think the restrictions will ever be loosened? I cant think of anything like this that has.

The government has been doing this with off-roading for years and hunting and firearms are going the same way. Maybe I am crazy but take a look at how much land is available for off-roading... if you take the desert out of it, it is even worse.

Keeping the government armed to the teeth while removing that ability from the citizens insures a quick and simple end to any civil upheaval that may occur and is ALWAYS in a governments better interest as it insures a higher level of control.

And as for liberals wanting more government, I don't think anyone necessarily wants more government but if it was left to old white money to help the poor, feed the hungry and care for the old and ill, it would never get done. Trickle down economics doesnt trickle down, it simply pools at the top.

so yeah.. thats why.

P.S. I never listen to Glen Beck or any of those fools, partisan politics are BS.

OK... fair enough. You guys gave reasoned answers... which I mostly disagree with but I do appreciate the effort.

Does anybody REALLY think that the government is afraid of us because we own guns? Really? Maybe back in the day when muskets were the weapons that everybody had... but nowadays our military has such advanced weaponry and is so well trained that they could pretty much wipe us out if they were so inclined. And I believe THAT is the main deterrent... the will of the members of the military to turn on their own people... that ultimately prevents it from happening.

Yeah, there are extreme left-wingers that would like to save Bambi. But just like the fringe element on the right that wants to overthrow the government by force... they represent too small a minority to really further that agenda. There are just too many sensible, rational moderate citizens out there who can appreciate the cultural value of hunting and owning guns to EVER let the minority get their way.

Hank, I'm a liberal and I DO NOT want government running my life. I give a lot in charitable contributions too. Your broad brush characterizations of liberals and what they want just don't meet the rational, logical criteria I was looking for. Sorry.

RvW, the Dems have abandoned gun control as one of their platform planks long ago. They know it's a political loser... and it is.

The Second Amendment isn't going anywhere... and NO rational politician would ever make any attempt to try and repeal it.

4Salt----The dems, by and large, still favor gun control. They know it's a loser...NOW.... but that can change quickly.

Getting into your "we can't possibly beat the U.S military" I would ask you..... how well have we, the U.S military, fought guerilla wars? Insurgencies and fractured coalitions have always been our downfall, at least since Vietnam. Marines were just killed because artillery couldn't be called in because of potential "collateral damage"...in Afganistan. I don't advocate killing innocent and children (God knows) but we have to realize that as a "good hearted Nation" we also don't have the necessary fight to win...despite the heroic efforts of our soldiers, sailors and airmen.

I don't think that our military would be able to stomach fighting their own brothers and sisters who are fighting to reclaim democracy.....in the most extreme but not unimaginable scenario.

That's sorta' why the Constitution still matters.

I have some home made chicken noodle soup that I can deliver..I'll add a little LWW sauce and you should be feeling better in no time.

Or just watch the Huskies get their arses handed to them today. This rain just might help the Dogs, they might still be in the game in the 1st qtr ?

Just make sure you store your bacon and guns in different cabinets, so the bacon doesn't get accidentally grabbed along with your shooting irons...

Are french fries still called Freedom Fries? I hardly ever eat 'em, but I want to keep up on the current lingo...

You didn't buy French Roast coffee at Costco, didja? I'm noting your use of French is increasing, Hank...it's almost like providing aid and comfort to the enemy...mebbe there are too many liberals in your x-ray room.

Fish on...

Todd