HuntingNet.com Forums

HuntingNet.com Forums (https://www.huntingnet.com/forum/)
-   Bowhunting (https://www.huntingnet.com/forum/bowhunting-18/)
-   -   My "bow only" poll (https://www.huntingnet.com/forum/bowhunting/251075-my-bow-only-poll.html)

quiksilver 07-01-2008 08:14 AM

RE: My "bow only" poll
 
"Order of importance?" WTF?

rybohunter 07-01-2008 08:17 AM

RE: My "bow only" poll
 
My bottom line regarding anything in this country is all about personal freedoms. I should be able to do damn well ANYTHING I please, as long as it doesn’t impair anyone else’s freedom to do the same, or cause severe harm to property, etc.
The Gov’t should be STRICTLY limited to only where it is needed, which is about 1/10 of the places it’s got it’s grubby mitts in currently.

And one last thing is that a person should NOT expect to go thru life without being offended. If what I do offends you, but otherwise does not impact your life in any way…..you are a complete moron. (that was about as nice as I could put it)

hillbillyhunter1 07-01-2008 08:19 AM

RE: My "bow only" poll
 

ORIGINAL: GMMAT


The one point that has not been dissected is the fact that gun ownership is only second behind freedom of speech when thought of in order of importance.
"I" think you're giving them too much credit (to bolster your argument) when you assign "order of importance" to the US Constitution's amendments. In this line of thinking.....it was more important for a man to be able to own a gun than it was for a black man to be considered a "man", at all. In fact..there was a post civil war inclusion to DENY black men their "right" to bear arms......for fear of them being able to protect themselves from the very men who sought to oppress them.

I think....if you asked a black American about the amendments to the US Constitution's"order of importance".....you might get a differing viepoint than the one you hold.

There are no amendments in the Bill of rights that discuss color at all or anything to which you infer. Those first 10 would have been the ones that were in a particular order for a reason (...although the 2nd should have been first;)). Isn't really relative that other amendments were added at later times is it??

HuntinGUS 07-01-2008 08:22 AM

RE: My "bow only" poll
 

My bottom line regarding anything in this country is all about personal freedoms. I should be able to do damn well ANYTHING I please, as long as it doesn’t impair anyone else’s freedom to do the same, or cause severe harm to property, etc.
The Gov’t should be STRICTLY limited to only where it is needed, which is about 1/10 of the places it’s got it’s grubby mitts in currently.

And one last thing is that a person should NOT expect to go thru life without being offended. If what I do offends you, but otherwise does not impact your life in any way…..you are a complete moron. (that was about as nice as I could put it)



I couldn't agree more rybo. I am still amazed at some of the "socialist" vibes I am getting from this site. It really is a scary thing!

huntingson 07-01-2008 08:22 AM

RE: My "bow only" poll
 
The second ammendmentwas written by REVOLUTIONISTS. The second ammendment was written to protect citizens' rights and obligations to attempt to overthrow a tyranical government should one come to power. That is what is meant by "a well regulated milia". That statement means that the people, us, need the ability to regulate the militia and not the other way around.

GMMAT 07-01-2008 08:24 AM

RE: My "bow only" poll
 

There are no amendments in the Bill of rights that discuss color at all or anything to which you infer. Those first 10 would have been the ones that were in a particular order for a reason (...although the 2nd should have been first;)). Isn't really relative that other amendments were added at later times is it??
What reason would there be to assign a (perceived) "order of importance? Where is it said that they were put in "order of importance"?

It isn't realtive to the argument....as long as you aren't a black man. Ask a black man about your "order of importance". As far as I'm concerned......the subsequent amendments blow that notion clean out of the water.;)

"Socialist"???....lol....Where in the hell did THAT come from? We're discussing strict constructionism....or...I thought we were.

jackflap 07-01-2008 08:24 AM

RE: My "bow only" poll
 
Quick- I sincerely thank you for taking the time to give your summary of the decision after reading it.

It is obvoius that being an attorney, you are much more versed than most, if not all of us in regard to these matters.

Having said that however, it seems that both sides are conjecturing conclusions that serve the purpose of soldifying their particular point of view.

You stated that the framers went out of their way to differentiate from the PA and VT "Declarations of Rights" in which terms such as self defense and hunting were explicit and went out of their way to avoid such language.

You also stated in your response that the 2nd amendment was to pay homage to state sovereignity and recognizing the need for a citizen militia.

Here is my question.

And I am askingto truly try understand the other side's argument.

Why then did they include the phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" if their intent was solely make a provision for State Militia. The sentence would have made perfect sense and accomplished this supposed sole purpose without it, so why was it included?

This is where I get hung up on the argument Stevens is making.

[align=left]The Second Amendment provides: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."[/align]

HuntingBry 07-01-2008 08:25 AM

RE: My "bow only" poll
 
I voted to keep the second amendment. The minute we start messing with the Bill of Rights is the second we start losing the liberties that our forefathers fought so hard to gain for us. They came to this land and created this nation to get away from tyranny. I won't accept anything that brings us closer to what theyworked to get away from without a fight.

Germ 07-01-2008 08:25 AM

RE: My "bow only" poll
 

ORIGINAL: HuntinGUS


My bottom line regarding anything in this country is all about personal freedoms. I should be able to do damn well ANYTHING I please, as long as it doesn’t impair anyone else’s freedom to do the same, or cause severe harm to property, etc.
The Gov’t should be STRICTLY limited to only where it is needed, which is about 1/10 of the places it’s got it’s grubby mitts in currently.

And one last thing is that a person should NOT expect to go thru life without being offended. If what I do offends you, but otherwise does not impact your life in any way…..you are a complete moron. (that was about as nice as I could put it)



I couldn't agree more rybo. I am still amazed at some of the "socialist" vibes I am getting from this site. It really is a scary thing!
Only reason it has not work is the right people have not been in charge yet:D

HuntinGUS 07-01-2008 08:28 AM

RE: My "bow only" poll
 

Only reason it has not work is the right people have not been in charge yet:D
"Yet" is right and it scares thehell out of me ............especially when I read some of the responses from what I thought was "like minded" people....[&:]


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 06:08 AM.


Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.