Political rant thread

I`m Batman · Postby **I`m Batman** » Wed Mar 20, 2013 9:14

kingtut wrote:I think Huzer just likes debating to debate:D

I think so. lol. He's the one that started this thread saying that the new laws are ridiculous.

Postby **Huzer** » Wed Mar 20, 2013 9:14

Shit, think of all of the people that pay through the nose to use their 5th amendment right.

I`m Batman · Postby **I`m Batman** » Wed Mar 20, 2013 9:14

Huzer wrote:Shit, think of all of the people that pay through the nose to use their 5th amendment right.

Yea, I know... that F*ed up.

Postby **Huzer** » Wed Mar 20, 2013 9:14

Here's my stance (yes, I know tut will fall out of his chair that I'm taking a stance on something). I think there's value in a background check. I don't agree with a state levied fee on a background check. As someone else mentioned "fees" are not up for voting and thus can be arbitrarily assessed, whereas a tax has to be put before voters for approval. If voters approve of a small tax on firearm ownership, I'll accept that, but I'm not thrilled with it. An fee/tax has no relevance to "gun control".

Regardless, I think the only "fee" that should be incurred is the actual cost of a background check. As I mentioned before, I think (but don't quote me) LexisNexis is around $10 or so. That includes an FBI check. I'm not sure if other inexpensive ones do. If there's a reliable method of obtaining background data for a smaller fee, I'm all for that, too. I also think that cost should be the business cost of running a gun shop.

Brigdh · Postby **Brigdh** » Wed Mar 20, 2013 9:14

Actually, there is a right to travel (derived from the 1st, 9th, 10th amendment, and certain parts of the main body of the Constitution if I recall correctly), and driving gets filed under that.

Website · Postby **Shadowden** » Wed Mar 20, 2013 9:14

mOOsE wrote:Hunting and fishing requires a license because it is federal/state land and to limit the amounts that are removed. Driving is not a right, at all actually.

Hunting and fishing requires a license unless the animals/fish are provided by a private party and the possibility of naturally occurring animals being harvested is removed. So even on private land, if it is possible for wild animals to be present, then hunting/fishing requires a license. The animals are property of the state.

Brigdh · Postby **Brigdh** » Wed Mar 20, 2013 9:14

Shadowden wrote:So even on private land, if it is possible for wild animals to be present, then hunting/fishing requires a license. The animals are property of the state.

This must be specific to Colorado, as Wisconsin, Michigan, and West Virginia all allow hunting of wild animals on your own land sans license (or at least did when I was a kid, I know Wisconsin has been screwing with the licenses lately).

mOOsE · Postby **mOOsE** » Wed Mar 20, 2013 9:14

Shadowden wrote:Hunting and fishing requires a license unless the animals/fish are provided by a private party and the possibility of naturally occurring animals being harvested is removed. So even on private land, if it is possible for wild animals to be present, then hunting/fishing requires a license. The animals are property of the state.

Interesting. Didn't know that. I'm sure there are many land owners that will still hunt on their own property, but that's definitely good to know.

Website · Postby **Shadowden** » Wed Mar 20, 2013 9:14

Brigdh wrote:This must be specific to Colorado, as Wisconsin, Michigan, and West Virginia all allow hunting of wild animals on your own land sans license (or at least did when I was a kid, I know Wisconsin has been screwing with the licenses lately).

Applies to Colorado, Pennsylvania, Idaho, Wyoming, and New Mexico. Can't speak to other states as I have not hunted in them.

Edit: forgot about Kansas. It applies there as well.

When we going hunting?

Website · Postby **Shadowden** » Wed Mar 20, 2013 9:14

Shadowden wrote:Hunting and fishing requires a license unless the animals/fish are provided by a private party and the possibility of naturally occurring animals being harvested is removed. So even on private land, if it is possible for wild animals to be present, then hunting/fishing requires a license. The animals are property of the state.

Actually, I'm not 100% correct. For instance bird hunting operations are not completely fenced, so wild birds could occur. Most every big game facility I have read about does have high fence though.

The premise remains that wild animals are the property of the state (all cases) and in most cases a license is required to hunt them regardless of property ownership.

Keep missing out on ar lowers....argggggh.

Justin · Postby **Justin** » Wed Mar 20, 2013 9:14

Brigdh wrote:Actually, there is a right to travel (derived from the 1st, 9th, 10th amendment, and certain parts of the main body of the Constitution if I recall correctly), and driving gets filed under that.

As with other rights, it isn't absolute. Your "right to drive" can be revoked for any number of reasons, including criminal offences (mainly DUI) and being too infirm to do so safely.

Brigdh · Postby **Brigdh** » Wed Mar 20, 2013 9:14

Justin wrote:As with other rights, it isn't absolute. Your "right to drive" can be revoked for any number of reasons, including criminal offences (mainly DUI) and being too infirm to do so safely.

What the hell are you even trying to argue? Both Moose and I'm Batman claimed that a right to drive didn't exist, and I claimed that it did. Who exactly was claiming that rights are absolute?

mOOsE · Postby **mOOsE** » Wed Mar 20, 2013 9:14

Brigdh wrote:What the hell are you even trying to argue? Both Moose and I'm Batman claimed that a right to drive didn't exist, and I claimed that it did. Who exactly was claiming that rights are absolute?

Right to travel, certainly, but driving a vehicle isn't a right... in terms of public roads. You can register and apply for the privilege, but it isn't given because you are born here in this country.

Brigdh · Postby **Brigdh** » Wed Mar 20, 2013 9:14

mOOsE wrote:Right to travel, certainly, but driving a vehicle isn't a right... in terms of public roads. You can register and apply for the privilege, but it isn't given because you are born here in this country.

I think you just stated a circular argument. You say there is a right to travel, but not a right to drive (a form of travel). Which is it?

I'm not arguing that driving on public roads is unrestricted (see post #101), but that doesn't invalidate the fact that its a right. On my own property, or privately owned roads, I do not need to be licensed to drive.

If your definition of a right is that it isn't restricted on public land, then name a form of transportation that isn't restricted on public land.

mOOsE · Postby **mOOsE** » Wed Mar 20, 2013 9:14

Brigdh wrote:I think you just stated a circular argument. You say there is a right to travel, but not a right to drive (a form of travel). Which is it?

I'm not arguing that driving on public roads is unrestricted (see post #101), but that doesn't invalidate the fact that its a right. On my own property, or privately owned roads, I do not need to be licensed to drive.

If your definition of a right is that it isn't restricted on public land, then name a form of transportation that isn't restricted on public land.

It is a form of travel, but the process is what is a right, not the vehicle you intend to use. You don't have the right to fly a plane, helicopter, balloon, etc without training, certification, registration, etc. Just because you can strap on roller skates, light your farts and propel yourself down 287 doesn't mean you have that right... But I stand behind (not literally) you if you'd like to try

Political rant thread

Who is online