🚀 go-pugleaf

lstowell@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com (Lon Stowell) wrote:

>Some one else >>What right do you have to kill animals for fun?
>>
>>
>>The rights given to me by the laws of our country. 
>
>  Which right would that be?  Does the constitutional provision
>  to keep and bear arms relate to sport hunting or does it really
>  relate to militias and also at avoiding oppressive governments. 
>
>>

Please read the entire constitution, in particular the part of about life 
and liberty...

In addition the same laws that currently allow hunting for deer, wild 
pigs, assorted birds and other animals in the state..


>>The same right that animals have to hunt in a completely natural setting.
>
>   So take your clothes off, give up the gun, and head out there
>   and propagandize that poor defenseless mountain lion to death.
>

How many times must it be pointed out that it is wholly natural for a 
being to use its superior intelligence to accomplish any it chooses. It 
is natural for men to make weapons to facilitate the process of hunting.
Moreover, (one more time) it causes the process to come to a quick, 
comparatively humane end.


>>What gives YOU the right to exclude those human beings who would 
>>choose to participate in that relationship from so doing?
>
>  Come off it.  There are several protected animals you cannot simply
>  go out and kill because you have the truly insane belief that humans
>  evolved as a gun-toting species.   If you are so keen on preserving
>  "human heritage", why don't you simply wait until the animals die
>  of other causes and scavenge the carrion?    
>

Protected species are protected simply because their numbers are quite 
low. That does NOT apply to mountain lions. Nor has anything I've posted 
suggested that any threatened species be hunted. Please learn how to 
read. Please try to remember what's posted here from one day to the next.


>>Not only that, I really believe you don't understand hunting. As I've 
>>tried to point out many, many times the fact that an animal is killed is 
>>nearly incidental from the perspective of the hunter. Of course, it is 
>>not incidental to the animal, but then neither is it incidental when an 
>>animal is killed by another animal. It is simply the ways things are and 
>>that fact alone shows that it is the way things ought to be.  
>
>   Uh huh. So if in the past, humans simply bashed each other over
>   the head to win arguments, you wouldn't have a problem with
>   someone who disagrees with you and is larger or better armed
>   dealing with you in that manner?  
>

That you cannot distinguish between animals and human beings and what is 
appropriate to each indicates a clear need for professional help. Please 
see a good psychiatrist.


>   What do you MEAN by that statement that killing the animal
>   is incidental to the hunter?  If your thesis is that Prop 197
>   is designed to control mountain lions, and yet you make such a
>   statement, PLEASE share with us unenlightened masses
>   how on earth you come to the conclusion that Prop 197 will result
>   in animal population control?  You gonna drug them and glue
>   condoms to the males or something?  
>

That it is "incidental" does not mean it would not occur; only that the 
process of hunting includes quite a bit more. Please learn to read. 

And, in case you've forgotten (or never knew in the first place) 
bounty-motivated hunting has nearly exterminated many species. Clearly, 
hunting would control population. Of course (one final time) NO ONE IS 
PROPOSING A LEVEL OF HUNTING THAT WOULD HARM THE SPECIES AS A WHOLE.



>>Hunting is a 
>>natural process. 
>
>   So is murder.   



Correctly speaking, "murder" is a legal term for the illegal form of 
homicide. Please educate yourself.