Kywilderness.com

Kywilderness.com Discussion => Political Nature => Topic started by: traildust on October 26, 2012, 05:05:51 PM

Title: Constitutional Amendment
Post by: traildust on October 26, 2012, 05:05:51 PM
With all due respect to my hunting and fishing friends.  I want to make a pitch for a "NO" vote on the proposed constitutional amendment that will be voted on in the general election on November 6th.  NRA staff have gone around the country twisting arms and convincing our legislators that an amendment that well here read below.

Summary: Propose to amend the Constitution of Kentucky to create a right to hunt, fish, and harvest nonthreatened species using traditional methods.
 
Measure Text: The citizens of Kentucky have the personal right to hunt, fish, and harvest wildlife, using traditional methods, subject only to statutes enacted by the Legislature, and to administrative regulations adopted by the designated state agency to promote wildlife conservation and management and to preserve the future of hunting and fishing. Public hunting and fishing shall be a preferred means of managing and controlling wildlife. This section shall not be construed to modify any provision of law relating to trespass, property rights, or the regulation of commercial activities.

Sounds pretty straight forward right.  Here is my issue.  This amendment is not needed now or in the next 100 years.  There is not one environmental group or any group trying to take away anyone's right to hunt or fish in Ky.  It is a crazy notion and would never see the light of day in the state legislator.  The NRA and its folks have presured our legislators into this, they fear if they did not support the NRA they would be voted out in the next election.  We don't need the NRA telling us how to live do we.  My other concern is we can't just willy-nilly change the state constitution for some specific group of people without some justification.  Again, there is not one lawsuit pending attempting to restrict any one's hunting or fishing rights.

So please vote "NO" if you agree that we need to protect our state constitution from the influence of all outside groups.  If we don't stand here then what's to stop N.O.W. from getting an amendment posted to outlaw grey haired legislators who are against abortion, or an amendment recognizing our rights to drink bourbon.  You can't ignore the vote - not voting is a yes vote and that is what the NRA wants folks to do.  This could pass with only a couple thousand votes when the general election post a couple million. 

Title: Re: Constitutional Amendment
Post by: CheeseyDean on October 28, 2012, 04:13:05 AM
I'll be voting no as well. I don't understand why this is even needed? People can already hunt all non threatened species here.
Title: Re: Constitutional Amendment
Post by: Trekker Forrest on October 28, 2012, 12:38:21 PM
I agree.  I've received mailings about this from the NRA and didn't see the point when I was reading them.  I subscribe to Jefferson's Maxim : That Government Is Best Which Governs Least.  We already have too many laws, half of which are redundant with the first half.  If it ain't broke don't fix it.  Back in my Debate days, we had this principle called Inherency.  It asked if there was already a law, agency or tradition in place which covered the same issue.  If there was, then we didn't need a duplicative one.  Anyone proposing a change bore the burden of proving that somehow existing laws or agencies did not adequately deal with the problem.  In this case, I see no evidence that there is a problem now.  So I vote No. 
Title: Re: Constitutional Amendment
Post by: Jay01 on November 04, 2012, 12:05:43 PM
How is the NRA selling this...  Whats the rational behind needing this bill?
Title: Re: Constitutional Amendment
Post by: genes on November 04, 2012, 01:56:33 PM
I feel reasonably sure that somewhere in this legal rhetoric is wording to benefit the NRA.
Title: Re: Constitutional Amendment
Post by: nsaP on December 09, 2012, 09:29:44 PM
I wondered this as well and also voted no.  As far as I can tell they're worried about some special interest group putting restrictions on hunting.  When I was looking into it I think there was a ban in California on hunting bears with dogs or something like that and a few states like our's are afraid of these boogeymen.

I raised the same questions y'all did on the KDFWR facebook page cause they were promoting it and they told people to "beware of what I say" and they questioned if I was working for some nefarious organization....lol.  As if it's impossible for someone to just disagree.

Also a way for the NRA and gun groups to stay relevant since apparently Obama's not taking their guns and frankly they've won the gun fight.  Gotta keep that money coming in tho...maybe Obama will take their guns next time!
Title: Re: Constitutional Amendment
Post by: Cliftyman on February 18, 2013, 04:13:56 PM
What is up with the vitrole towards the NRA right now?

The NRA came out and made a clear and concise statement regarding the Sandy Hook massacre.  They said schools needed better protection.... that they needed armed protection.  The president and many other politicals in Washington send their children to schools with armed guards.... why can't we "masses" have the same level of protection and why is the NRA scorned for suggesting something the president himself participates in? "Gun Free Zones" do nothing to protect anyone.  They simply proclaim that law-abiding citizens will not be armed to defend themselves against pyschopaths that do not adhere to them.

The NRA's sole obligation is to uphold a citizen's right to bear arms.  This right to bear arms is not something granted by the government.  This is a natural right that the government is not supposed to infringe.  I'm afraid many people in our country forget we are only 200 or some odd years removed from tyranny.  They act like it could never happen again.  No law will protect you when a group of tyrannical politicians get enough power to inflict oppression on you.  They can take what they wish to take, they can treat you unjustly.  The only thing in the world that will keep it from occurring is use of force.

Some act like a citizen owning a semi-automatic sport gun with some black plastic and a collapsible stock should be a punishable offense.  Do you realize this is a far cry from what the government has at their disposal?  The government has fully automatic and select fire class A machine guns, drones that can mount .50 caliber machine guns and rockets and all sorts of intel, mines and anti-personal weapons platforms at their disposal.  Do you really think any individual has a chance against that... but they want to go a step further and limit us to single shot weapons.... that is their long-term goal.

The right to bear arms is there for us to protect our own because it is first and foremost OUR duty to protect our family.  Just like its our duty to take care of our own family and not the governments to take care of us.  A high capacity shotgun or a semi-automatic sport gun is a perfectly justifiable weapon to protect our families from criminals who more often than not may have advanced weapons in their hand.  Have you ever seen first responders really save anyone?  No their first duty is to neutralize the current threat and more often than not check the pulse of the already dead innocent victims of some pyschopath.

My entire point in this is I think you guys should focus some of your mistrust and scorn on our government.  The NRA is a private group trying to keep our individual rights alive.  Yeah they help firearms companies keep making money... so what?  They are private companies and they don't have the ability to oppress you, steal your constitutionally granted rights... they create jobs and they do create products for law-abiding citizens to enjoy through target practice, hunting and defend themselves with.

And yes... there is certainly a threat to hunting.  I have friends that live in other countries where the government has practically regulated hunting into oblivion.  Senators like Diane Feinstein have made it pretty clear she doesn't believe in many gun rights at all... and if you think she would stop with her current proposed legislation if given enough power you are fooling yourself.

I also subscribe to Jefferson's Maxim that the government should govern less.... but I also understand that states rights are an answer to federal overreach.  This response is perfectly feasible and I applaud our state for seeking to uphold the constitution where the federal government would limit it.  If limits were to be placed on gun ownership, those limits should be placed locally and at a state level... such as what Illinois and the city of New York have done (and due to those laws those places are a violent crime hell).... I'm very thankful that with our freedom-minded populace and hunting culture we make legislation that upholds our rights instead of limits them.

BTW, I am not a member of the NRA
Title: Re: Constitutional Amendment
Post by: CheeseyDean on February 18, 2013, 07:00:43 PM
I support the NRA's attempts at keeping our right to own firearms unimpeded (like most of us, I own a couple guns). But even more rights for hunters are not needed, at least not in America. I don't see hunting going away any time soon.
Title: Re: Constitutional Amendment
Post by: Ewker on February 19, 2013, 09:35:42 AM
lots of fear going on here
Title: Re: Constitutional Amendment
Post by: keith on February 19, 2013, 02:23:36 PM
lots of fear going on here
"Even paranoids have enemies." - Henry A. Kissinger
Title: Re: Constitutional Amendment
Post by: Ewker on February 19, 2013, 03:27:51 PM
lots of fear going on here
"Even paranoids have enemies." - Henry A. Kissinger


Only Thing We Have to Fear Is Fear Itself
FDR
Title: Re: Constitutional Amendment
Post by: Brownman on February 19, 2013, 09:27:48 PM
For some reason, unknown to me, I don't look at the govment as an institution trying to oppress me.  The Bill of Rights limits what govment cannot do to the citizenry and within these ten amendments I feel reasonably safe. I am a gun owner but do not and will not possess an assault weapon.  Just don't feel the need for one. Instead of worrying about the govment enslaving me I look forward to more schools, roads and worthwhile social programs. If we can cut out the abuse and provide assistance only to those who truly need it, perhaps we can enjoy some of the wonderful things made possible by the Department of the Interior. Yes, the govment does work for us.   
Title: Re: Constitutional Amendment
Post by: Ewker on February 19, 2013, 11:16:43 PM
For some reason, unknown to me, I don't look at the govment as an institution trying to oppress me.  The Bill of Rights limits what govment cannot do to the citizenry and within these ten amendments I feel reasonably safe. I am a gun owner but do not and will not possess an assault weapon.  Just don't feel the need for one. Instead of worrying about the govment enslaving me I look forward to more schools, roads and worthwhile social programs. If we can cut out the abuse and provide assistance only to those who truly need it, perhaps we can enjoy some of the wonderful things made possible by the Department of the Interior. Yes, the govment does work for us.


nice post  :)
Title: Re: Constitutional Amendment
Post by: Cliftyman on February 20, 2013, 09:44:37 AM
Quote
For some reason, unknown to me, I don't look at the govment as an institution trying to oppress me.  The Bill of Rights limits what govment cannot do to the citizenry and within these ten amendments I feel reasonably safe. I am a gun owner but do not and will not possess an assault weapon.  Just don't feel the need for one. Instead of worrying about the govment enslaving me I look forward to more schools, roads and worthwhile social programs. If we can cut out the abuse and provide assistance only to those who truly need it, perhaps we can enjoy some of the wonderful things made possible by the Department of the Interior. Yes, the govment does work for us.

I would love to live in a nation where we have responsible leaders who aren't sold out to lobbyists or govern in the interest of increasing their own power but the facts speak for themselves.  Our government is over $16 trillion in debt.  It is almost to the point where it will be unable to do anything for you.  This has nothing to do with fear... it has to do with simple economics.  Government makes "wonderful" things possible with the labor of taxpayers and they aren't making enough for its insatiable appetite.  In the last 4 years the bill of rights has been extended beyond its original intent and the American definition of government has went beyond life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness to include life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, a government health care plan, a job, a cellphone, internet access, lunch, assisted suicide and the list goes on and on.

Our government simply can't pay for it all.. and just like the parent who gives their children everything they want and creates spoiled brats who fight and quarrel and have to sell the family estate, our government is creating a irresponsible, spoiled populace whose lavish spending and ignorance will be the undoing of this once great Republic.

http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/ (http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/)
Title: Re: Constitutional Amendment
Post by: Cliftyman on February 20, 2013, 09:54:43 AM
BTW, please read this....
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052748704429304574467071019099570.html (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052748704429304574467071019099570.html)

I'm afraid if you are asking for more social programs you don't realize the predicament in... and sorry, "bombing China" won't be an option to get us out.

Any politician that calls for expanding government will oppress you due to the problem above, even if they are doing it inadvertently.

The only option to get us out of this mess is to cut spending and reduce programs.
Title: Re: Constitutional Amendment
Post by: Cliftyman on February 20, 2013, 10:40:00 AM
Quote
For some reason, unknown to me, I don't look at the govment as an institution trying to oppress me

one more thing and I'll get off my soapbox.

Did you know in the last several years multiple government non-military institutions have bought billions of rounds of ammunition.  The SSA bought 174,000 rounds of hollow point .45 caliber ammunition (you don't target practice with hollow points generally), the National Weather Service put in a 46,000 round buy and the Department of Homeland Security really outdid them all by purchasing nearly 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition .40 caliber, .223 and .308.  By comparison I've heard estimates that the US military used less than 70 million rounds in the Iraq war.

In addition to the DHS ordering an insane amount of ammunition it is also pushing to allow increased drone usage and bending the rules about using weaponized drones against domestic terrorist threats without due process and it has recently had its target supplier start supplying it with targets of pregnant women with guns, children with guns and elderly people with guns.

You can easily research any of this on the internet and I'm not sensationalizing it or misrepresenting it.

You tell me what the purpose of the purchases above are.

I've added a link to the site that has the targets.... the site is not one I frequent (lest you think I'm some kind of adherent nut to some sort of idealogy) its simply the first site that popped up when I typed "DHS pregnant targets" into google.

http://theallegiant.com/dhs-target-children-and-pregnant-women/ (http://theallegiant.com/dhs-target-children-and-pregnant-women/)

Title: Re: Constitutional Amendment
Post by: CheeseyDean on February 21, 2013, 01:15:27 AM
Brownman, no offense but I think your statement that you "have no need" for an assault weapon is short sighted. As Cliftyman pointed out, the government obviously feels the need to buy billions of assault ammo when there hasn't been any real attack on our country since 9/11. So the government having all that stuff, and you not having any, makes you feel safe? What if the economy/American society collapses?

You need to accept that the government does not care about you as a person.
Title: Re: Constitutional Amendment
Post by: copper creek on February 22, 2013, 08:21:10 AM
30,000 Americans are injured or killed each year by firearms.

Enough said.  The vast majority weren't killed or injured by the goverment.
Title: Re: Constitutional Amendment
Post by: CheeseyDean on February 22, 2013, 01:48:07 PM
I'm not sure of the exact statistics, but I guarantee you this as a fact- less than 5% of those gun crimes are committed with semi-automatic rifles. The absolute vast majority of gun crime is perpetrated by poor people and gang members, with handguns and occasionally shotguns. Acting all emotional and passing arbitrary bans on semi-automatic rifles (assault weapon is just a broad term the media demonizes) or magazines is not going to solve anything.
Title: Re: Constitutional Amendment
Post by: copper creek on February 22, 2013, 03:20:41 PM
A strong majority of Americans (92%) and most gun owners (82%) are for universal background checks.  Why is the NRA opposed?

http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/22/opinion/kelly-gun-loophole/index.html?hpt=hp_c2
Title: Re: Constitutional Amendment
Post by: CheeseyDean on February 23, 2013, 12:04:05 AM
Because even more background checks will just make it even more inconvenient for law-abiding citizens to buy guns, meanwhile the gang members and burglars who use guns illegally will just keep on buying them through illegal means.

However, I do agree that there needs to be BETTER background checks, for stuff like mental health, etc. Just not necessarily more. I think private citizens being able to sell to each other should still be possible.
Title: Re: Constitutional Amendment
Post by: nsaP on February 24, 2013, 04:17:03 PM
Also a way for the NRA and gun groups to stay relevant since apparently Obama's not taking their guns and frankly they've won the gun fight.  Gotta keep that money coming in tho...maybe Obama will take their guns next time!

I made this post a couple of weeks too soon huh!
Title: Re: Constitutional Amendment
Post by: Cliftyman on February 26, 2013, 08:59:33 PM
Quote
30,000 Americans are injured or killed each year by firearms.

Enough said.  The vast majority weren't killed or injured by the goverment.

I think you need to dig much deeper into your numbers....

Lookup FBI violent crime stats.... I'll make it easy for you.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-20 (http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-20)

The above stats are for 2011 since 2012 stats are preliminary but they should be fairly relevant.

So the true number of firearm deaths is 8000+ as reported by the FBI and the overwhelming majority by firearm was handgun.... knives have killed more than 10x the amount of people as rifles and hands and feet have killed twice as many people as rifles.

So with this new found knowledge don't get upset at me and try to find some nuance in my data to try and gain the upper hand.  With this new found knowledge compare what I've shared with you to what you hear daily on the mainstream media, news outlets and television and ask yourself "are they presenting the facts in the proper light?"

After you ask yourself that question consider "are they intentionally misleading people?"

Also consider that car accidents, DUIs and heart attacks kill vastly more people than personal defense rifles.... so what are we doing about that?  Are we banning fast food, banning alcohol and cars?  No of course not.... so the action of banning personal defense rifles which are much less lethal is so much more illogical.
Title: Re: Constitutional Amendment
Post by: CheeseyDean on February 27, 2013, 01:03:11 AM
Pffft, the media would never try to mislead us! They're not ruled by money or corporations, and their main concern is reporting truth and non-biased facts to the public. Quit being a paranoid gun nut.




Just kidding.
Title: Re: Constitutional Amendment
Post by: copper creek on March 01, 2013, 10:39:45 PM
I agree that the media and our politicians are biased and prejudiced, both on the right and left.  But they are a reflection of us all, with our own biases and prejudices.  It is sometimes difficult to discern the truth.  I do believe we have a problem with gun violence in America and I believe most Americans agree.  That is not paranoia in my opinion just a recognition of a serious problem.  If the figure is 8000 deaths a year (instead of the 30,000 deaths and injuries I've seen quoted), that's still more than twice the number of people killed on 9/11.  We went to war for those deaths.  It seems to me we could do better.  We need ideas on solutions.  Universal background checks seem reasonable to me, are acceptable to most Americans ( including strong majorities of gun owners and NRA members), and would be a good first step.

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/02/mark-kelly-closing-gun-show-loophole-is-right-way-to-go-88187.html
Title: Re: Constitutional Amendment
Post by: CheeseyDean on March 02, 2013, 12:23:19 AM
War is not the right answer to everything.

Also, something I feel is worth noting- there is no real "gun show loophole". Like "assault rifle", it's a misconstrued term the media uses to scare people. The so-called "loophole" has ALWAYS been there. For as long as there has been gun laws, many states have allowed private citizens to sell to each other without any regulation. That's all it is; citizens buying and selling to each other, without the need of the government's involvement.

Criminals and deranged killers aren't going to be concerned about background checks or obtaining a gun legally, so why should we put any more burden on citizens?
Title: Re: Constitutional Amendment
Post by: Cliftyman on March 05, 2013, 11:49:57 AM
I think gun violence is terrible.  As you guys may know we recently had a person who was heavily invested in the community (worked with kids at our performing Arts center) who was shot three times @ 2PM in a parking lot in the middle of town by a court officer.

This man had a 2 week old baby and two other kids.  No one knows all the details and no one knows if it was due to a gripe, road-rage or what.

Fact is that restricting gun ownership would have done nothing to help this man.  The fact is that gun free zones do nothing to protect our children.  Fact is that restricting the 2nd ammendment rights of law-abiding citizens do nothing but empower the criminals.

I am all for having sturdy background checks for any individual who purchases a new firearm, but when you have to police secondary sales you are simply admitting that your checks on original purchases didn't work.  As CheeseyDean posted there is no "loophole" for private sales at gun shows.  Private selling without regulation is a hallmark of a free enterprise capitalistic society.  You must realize to when you put regulations on private sales it creates all sorts of burdens on people.  Can I loan my gun to someone to take it hunting, can I sell or give my firearm to a family member?  Can I pass my firearms to my kids without restrictions?

IF we had caring, responsible individuals running our government I would agree with you wholeheartedly but the actions of our politicians speak for themselves.  Government shows its corruption and negligence daily.  We have 16 trillion in debt.  If a private individual acted like the government it would be bankrupt or in jail. 

Until our politicians show they can hold themselves to the same standard as I hold myself I refuse to give them anymore power over my life, and if I'm a responsible individual I can always do a better job of taking myself and protecting myself than the government can... at least on a personal, local level.

It all boils down to the federal government overreaching more and more.  I actually wouldn't mind the local or state government getting harsher on some things because you know what?  I could move.  When the feds do it they are overreaching and messing up the balance of powers that our forefathers intended.
Title: Re: Constitutional Amendment
Post by: Woodsman on March 28, 2013, 02:30:11 PM
Right on cliftyman!! I could not have said it any better.
Title: Re: Constitutional Amendment
Post by: Woodsman on March 28, 2013, 02:57:59 PM
Cheeseydean thank you for clarifying to everyone that there is no such thing as "gunshow loopholes" or "assault weapons".
 More people are killed by clubs and hammers than by modern sporting rifles. Should we ban "dangerous" high density louisville slugger "assault" bats?! No! Assault is an action, not a category of weapon.