BigGameHunt.net Hunting Forums

[fire6469]

I agree with most of what is being said. However, I am completely apalled at what was said about shooting at the harrasser. If you wonder why these people are so adiment about the hunting rights and gun rights it is because of the stupidity like that.

I have been hunting for a long time. I have also been in law enforcement for a long time. The comment about shooting at somebody was ridiculous and immature. If you would personally do this shame on you. There is no humor or honor in such an action. If it really is like that where you live I would personally move.. If they would do that to them who is to say that they would not shoot at you or your family?
Just a thought!

[expatriate]

Fire6469:
Much as I appreciate Bitmasher's sense of humor,I can see your point. As sportsmen, we may all understand the context of a sarcastic comment and file it accordingly. Yet it's been established that a lot of these protesters aren't exactly the brightest bulbs in the pack. Taken out of context, it could be construed that we support use of deadly force to supress first amendment rights. I know that's not what Bitmasher intended, but recent election propaganda shows how any quote can be taken out of context and twisted around against you.

That said, I'm a bit frustrated that the rules of debate seem to have been rewritten to say that hunters must not say anything, even in joking amongst themselves, that might offend the delicate anti-hunter. Yet antis get to crank out the most inflammatory (and even violent) rhetoric possible in vast public forums, and the media keeps quiet or even supports them. That's what appalls me -- that ecoterrorists are allowed to advocate and undertake violence against people engaged in lawful activity, yet we're the bad guys because we tell a joke about stopping them.

[ This Message was edited by: expatriate on 2002-11-02 21:52 ]

[bitmasher]

Fire6469, please state how my post is helping the anti-gun or anti-hunting movement.

The duck hunters referred to by Orp, did not go out looking to tangle with an ultra-light. The ulta-light pilot was engaging in a premediate plan to destroy their hunting opportunity, on not one, but two seperate days. Furthermore the pilot in question had a history of engaging in this sort of activity. Making a career of pissing off hunters sounds like a growth opportunity.

Now even though this pilot is a real jacka$$, he does not deserve to be shot and I stated in my post that I would not shoot at him, nor did I try to glorify any would be shooter. I didn't even say that I condoned shooting at the pilot.

Now here is the subtly (read this carefully), I said, I knew of hunters that would have taken a pot-shot or two. Right or wrong, some hunters would have been enraged on the second day of this annoying activity by this thoughtless pilot. It is my belief that some of these enraged hunters would have taken a shot. Ridiculous and immature perhaps, but hunters have these misgivings just like any other human.

Now giving you the benefit of the doubt, perhaps that is just a "glimmer" of evidence for the anti-gun crowd. I say a "glimmer" because it is a weak arguement for an anti-gun activist to say: "We need to remove all guns, so that the rare enraged hunter doesn't shoot an anti-hunting activitist that is repeatedly harrassing the enraged hunter."

I'm not trying to slam you or start a flame war (starting a flame war with a guy named Fire would be bad right? :wink:).

[orp0741]

Lets take a moment to pull our head out of our A$$ and stop thinking like a Wal-Mart security guard. If I was in the hunters’ predicament with the ultra-light I would be tempted to take a 7mm Remington Mag. and shoot at the engine. But the word of the day is tempted and I would make a statement like that on a national level. Anyway, if someone did shoot him down and it made national news, in the grand scheme of things it would be meaningless. It would likely invoke a short-term response by the lead-me-by-the-nose-people. Politicians might send out a press release that would be insignificant in content making sure not to offend anyone (the voters), because they will be looking at this:



Now ask yourself this, “What type of statement and media forum would I have to use to change political policy being up against revenue numbers like these, and how much will it cost?”

Bitmasher, your reply was great and funny. You don’t need to defend yourself especially on a public forum. I always thought forums like this are set up for all types of opinions; otherwise it would be like talking to yourself.

ORP

P.S. Just a thought if hunting was a business making that $22,104,313,660 billion a year it would be 35 in the fortune 500 list.
_________________


[ This Message was edited by: orp0741 on 2002-11-03 15:49 ]

[bucknaked40]

Maybe this will help you to know if they are really after us!IS IT TRUE?

Truth is sincerity in action, character, and utterance

.......An example of the relationship between the industry and its workers is demonstrated by the Humane Society of the United States’ (HSUS) recent hiring of John Paul "JP" Goodwin, previously of the Coalition to Abolish the Fur Trade (CAFT).(3) Goodwin, who dropped out of high school to pursue protests, and stated, "My goal is the abolition of all animal agriculture", is now a full-fledged DC-based conflict industrialist.........


His dream: "If ALF was to get an above-ground voice, a political lobby, that is the next challenge
Source: http://www.furcommission.com/news/newsF03i.htm


The Truth Is That HUMANElines is a a project of The Humane Society of the United States and The Fund for Animals, that the HumaneUSA PAC was a creation of Wayne Pacelle and that Wayne Pacelle was hired directly from The Fund for Animals by The Humane Society Of The United States......

Hammer: So the real agenda and goal of Fund For Animals is a total ban on all hunting everywhere?

Pacelle: Yes.

Hammer: So all this debate about whether or not the Black Bear is threatened or endangered and the actual number of Black Bear that we have in Florida is really irrelevant since the goal of your organization is to ban all hunting everywhere?

Pacelle: Yes, but we also oppose dog fights and cock fights.

Hammer: Wait a minute. We're not talking about dog fights or cock fights. We're talking about hunting and I want everybody to pay attention and understand that all this emotional debate and rhetoric has nothing to do with Black Bears -- it is designed to help achieve a total ban of all hunting period.

Cole: Hey, I agree with Wayne. I'm opposed to all hunting everywhere also.

Hammer: That's your choice but the bottom line is that Wayne has finally admitted that Fund for Animals is out to ban all hunting everywhere. I hope people are paying attention because we finally have gotten them to publicly admit their real agenda.

Source: http://www.responsiblewildlife.....unting.htm
SO IS IT TRUE?

[bucknaked40]

Maybe this will help you to know if they are really after us!IS IT TRUE?

Truth is sincerity in action, character, and utterance

.......An example of the relationship between the industry and its workers is demonstrated by the Humane Society of the United States’ (HSUS) recent hiring of John Paul "JP" Goodwin, previously of the Coalition to Abolish the Fur Trade (CAFT).(3) Goodwin, who dropped out of high school to pursue protests, and stated, "My goal is the abolition of all animal agriculture", is now a full-fledged DC-based conflict industrialist.........


His dream: "If ALF was to get an above-ground voice, a political lobby, that is the next challenge
Source: http://www.furcommission.com/news/newsF03i.htm


The Truth Is That HUMANElines is a a project of The Humane Society of the United States and The Fund for Animals, that the HumaneUSA PAC was a creation of Wayne Pacelle and that Wayne Pacelle was hired directly from The Fund for Animals by The Humane Society Of The United States......

Hammer: So the real agenda and goal of Fund For Animals is a total ban on all hunting everywhere?

Pacelle: Yes.

Hammer: So all this debate about whether or not the Black Bear is threatened or endangered and the actual number of Black Bear that we have in Florida is really irrelevant since the goal of your organization is to ban all hunting everywhere?

Pacelle: Yes, but we also oppose dog fights and cock fights.

Hammer: Wait a minute. We're not talking about dog fights or cock fights. We're talking about hunting and I want everybody to pay attention and understand that all this emotional debate and rhetoric has nothing to do with Black Bears -- it is designed to help achieve a total ban of all hunting period.

Cole: Hey, I agree with Wayne. I'm opposed to all hunting everywhere also.

Hammer: That's your choice but the bottom line is that Wayne has finally admitted that Fund for Animals is out to ban all hunting everywhere. I hope people are paying attention because we finally have gotten them to publicly admit their real agenda.

Source: http://www.responsiblewildlife.....unting.htm
SO IS IT TRUE?

[expatriate]

Excellent point, Orp. It'd be a national priority if any other industry that contributed over $1.7 billion to the economy every year were under attack from terrorists.

[bucknaked40]

[bucknaked40]

All i can say is the politicians can't put that money in their pockets. Look at what happened to the fur industry! Also look at the TOBACCO industry! Don't ever say never!

[ This Message was edited by: bucknaked40 on 2002-11-03 21:06 ]

[orp0741]

bucknaked40,

I have no clue what you are trying to say. Can you please elaborate? I cannot see any coalition with any of your statements and the hunting industry. Especially “the politicians can't put that money in their pockets and also look at the TOBACCO industry!”

ORP

[ This Message was edited by: orp0741 on 2002-11-03 21:54 ]

[expatriate]

Good point, bucknaked40 (won't ask about the handle).

I think the main threat we face is the attempt to make us social lepers in the same way smokers were ostracized. We see this routinely in the entertainment industry, which seems unable to portray a sportsman as anything other than an overweight, uneducated, bigoted, perhaps even sadistic, white male. This is no more true about sportsmen than similar stereotypes are about minorities. The threat we face isn't from eco-terrorism, but from those who are trying to label us as existing at the fringes of society, where they can bump us off.

Why do the liberal elite in the media and entertainment industries always resort to labels and image attacks? Because image is their bread and butter. In their world it's more important than politics or anything else. Image = $$ in the entertainment industry, and that's how they see the world. Some politicians have adopted this philosophy.

Look at what happened when Charlton Heston was elected president of the NRA. The media immediately took every effort to destroy his image, because image is the critical center of gravity for any celebrity. Luckily, Mr. Heston is one of those few that put beliefs ahead of career.

I guarantee you that most of those Hollywood celebrities don't care a whit about their liberal causes as much as they do about appearances. These people live and die through publicity, and they'll support any cause they believe to be trendy or might gain them positive media exposure. If being a PETA supporter incurs even a hint of negative media coverage, you'll see a mass exodus of celebrities running away from the organization.

It's dog eat dog in an entertainment industry that delivers tremendous wealth to those willing to play the game. I believe very few of those people (especially the younger ones) would stick with a cause if it began to affect their careers.

[ This Message was edited by: expatriate on 2002-11-03 22:38 ]

[bitmasher]

I think what bucknaked is talking about is related to the "Cockfighting Ban" that is up for a vote in Oklahoma on Tuesday. 47 states ban chicken fights, OK is a hold out.

On a side note, this issue isn't for me to decide (i'm a CO resident). However I would support a ban on the use of the word "cockfighting". Everytime I hear it, bad (very bad) visuals pop into my head and lets just say they don't involve chickens. (Hint: "cock" has multiple meanings, most of which are not good.)

So please lets stick to nice words like "roster fighting" or "chicken fighting". I think a guy named "buckednaked" talking about cockfighting will drive me over the edge.

:wink:

[ This Message was edited by: bitmasher on 2002-11-03 22:22 ]

[expatriate]

Bravo, Bitmasher!
Not only is the term almost pornographic, it is also sexist. The term "chicken" is also a politically incorrect slam. Thus, if Oklahoma were to put a measure on the ballot to ban courageously challenged poultry conflict, I doubt it would pass.

[ This Message was edited by: expatriate on 2002-11-03 22:47 ]

[bucknaked40]

I can understand anyone from Colorado being afraid to say COCK FIGHTING with Wayne ALLERD one of the top 16 HSUS senators. However my point is that these politicians are taking money from these animal rights groups and are writting legislation against you just as they have the tobbaco industry which generated a lot more money than hunting. Wayne Pacelle head of the HSUS has bragged that only seven percent of Americans are hunters so he is going to take it state by state starting in Calif and make hunting against the law by the initive process that they have used to outlaw cock fighting. So are you voting for Mr allerd tomorrow? Thanks Buck








ERD

[ This Message was edited by: bucknaked40 on 2002-11-04 21:38 ]

[bucknaked40]

Here is also some interesting reading if you are so inclined. This is the person that got the ANTI cock fighting question on the ballot in OKLA.So What Does Janet Halliburton Do When She Is Not Trying To Shove Some New Rights Robbing Law Down The Throat Of Oklahoma?

Maybe We Can Get Some Idea From This Website?

http://www.gayly.com/

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From The Community Section..............

Gay and Lesbian Film Festival
TULSA - Joining the ranks of other cities across the country, Tulsa and Oklahoma City will once again have a gay and lesbian film festival. The OUT-OK Gay and Lesbian International Film Festival will be presented over the course of two week-ends in November. Oklahoma City will be host for the opening weekend of the film festival which will be November 15-17th............

From The Classified Section..............

Attractive GWM bottom, Clinton area, seeks young top men, straight, bi or gay from Elk City, Weatherford, or wherever for weekly encounters. Race unimportant.

G/W/Pt/TV, 43 yrs, sub bottom, 135 lbs, HIV-, bored, lonely, seeks GWM top possibly Dom, 35-50, well endowed, HIV- and Sane. No game players please! Interests in Role Play, Light B/D, S/M, spankings. Send Photos and letters of interest.

Lesbian couple ISO friends ONLY. 21 and older! We enjoy clubbing, movies, staying home and having a few beers, etc. Must be DRUG free! Interested? Want more than friendship? Find someone else.


From The Features Section..............

Family Law
by Janet Halliburton


Privacy Isn’t a Luxury, It’s the Law
My kung fu sensei sat in the park with his class. As usual, I had challenged him on one of the fundamentals of the martial arts: reality versus everything else.

“There is no need for privacy.” He said. “The locked door is an illusion of security. And why should you care what is known and unknown about you? Secrecy is not a requirement of life. Your imagined need for privacy is only a result of your cultural upbringing.”

True enough, I thought. But, still. Whether we are talking about privacy in my house or privacy in my thoughts, I have to have it. Most Americans believe that way. The Constitution is plain evidence of that. I definitely have a death grip on the crutch of “that which is mine is mine, and not yours.”

Being gay in America involves privacy issues. The social pressures of the majority forces most glbt people to disguise themselves as heterosexual. This oppressive living is obviously unpleasant and damaging to the individual. But the negligent or intentional release of information about their sexual orientation without their consent could cause them to lose their family or their job, and even make them the victim of crimes.

Our state government interferes with the right of glbt’s to engage in the most basic of human activities. Our Oklahoma Constitution mirrors much of the language of the federal Constitution’s Bill of Rights. But just like the history of the U.S. Constitution, the Oklahoma Constitution has been interpreted to exclude people of color and women. Today it is frequently interpreted to not include gays and lesbians.

Laws are enacted to relieve an immediate pressure on the legislature. Sometimes the pressure is so intense that the governmental officials do not have time to research and understand all of the ramifications that passing the law will have on daily life. We should all live to be so powerful as the forces that push the buttons of Congress.

During our lifetime, Oklahoma has been the foot-dragger among the states as far as human rights. But sometimes there is a glimmer of light. In fairness, I must also point out that frequently Oklahoma laws and regulations that protect the rights of glbt’s are forced on our state legislature by the threat of loss of federal funds.

One of these laws the feds pressured Oklahoma to pass is Title 63 of the Oklahoma Statutes, Section 1-502.2. This law creates powerful penalties for the unauthorized release of information about an individual’s HIV status. The law makes the release a crime, even if the information got out due to simple negligence on the part of the record keeper. It also gives you a right to sue for damages if records including your HIV status are released without your permission, and makes a provision for exemplary damages and attorney fees to be paid by the negligent record keeper. “Exemplary damages” is legalese for an amount of money that will punish the offenders and make an example of them so this kind of thing won’t be happening again.

You might have noticed that every time you go to a new doctor there is a consent form for you to sign. This generally gives your permission for the medical facility to release your file to your insurance company or government agency that is paying for your treatment. You might have found it odd that this release includes your permission to release information about your HIV status or venereal disease, even when you are being treated for a broken arm. This is the health care providers way of covering themselves so they do not violate Section 1-502.2 and related federal regulations.

As a health care consumer, you have rights. Here are some of them:
- You have a right to read everything you sign. No one should hurry you through this.
- You have a right to a copy of anything you sign, and to a copy of anything in your medical records.
- You have a right to be notified of any release of your records before it occurs.
- You have a right to cross out anything on a release form with which you don’t agree. Cross it out, initial the cross out, and date it.
- You have a right to put a beginning and ending date on any consent you sign. For example, you can pencil in that your consent to release the record to your insurer begins on today’s date and ends in six months. For any release of records after six months, the health care provider would have to ask for your consent again.

If you suspect that your records containing your HIV status or your condition of hepatitis, syphilis or gonorrhea have been released to anyone without your consent, contact an attorney. This law pertains to all people and agencies that have such information, not just medical care providers.

My kung fu teacher is right in his philosophy. For the kung fu adept, security of individual property is not a condition of life. But at the end of class that day I still walked away a civil rights lawyer with my love of privacy intact.

Janet Halliburton is an attorney in private practice in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. She is a member of the American Trial Lawyers Association, the National Criminal Defense Lawyers Association, and is registered with Lambda. Her articles printed in The Gayly are not intended to substitute for legal advice and are presented for informatio nal purposes only.



Source: http://www.gayly.com/