Fear and gun ownership.

[Rich2018]

In Alaska it is illegal to use a .22 LR on any big game animal. Poaching is also illegal in Alaska. Just ask Ted Nugent.

Ted Nugent pleads guilty in illegal AK bear kill

Rocker and gun rights advocate Ted Nugent pleaded guilty Tuesday to transporting a black bear he illegally killed in Alaska, saying he was sorry for unwittingly violating the law. ...

www.foxnews.com

Alaska does not have cougars, but shooting a critter that is not either attacking you or someone else is considered "poaching" (unless you are legally hunting the critter) and not self-defense.

Isn't poaching by definition, a crime ?

 

[Glitch]

Poaching is defined as illegal hunting.

The Nugent case is interesting. He apparently violated a rather obscure Alaskan regulation, but wasn't charged for that. Instead, the feds got him for illegally transporting the carcass.

It isn't obscure at all. Every hunter knows that game taken in a GMU counts towards their limit. Just as every fisherman knows that every salmon they catch in a particular river counts toward their limit. It is only "obscure" to those pricks who never bother to actually read the regulations and would rather simply violate the law - like Ted Nugent. Nugent has a history of violating those "obscure" game regulations that everyone else seems to know.

 

[RF667799]

It isn't obscure at all. Every hunter knows that game taken in a GMU counts towards their limit. Just as every fisherman knows that every salmon they catch in a particular river counts toward their limit. It is only "obscure" to those pricks who never bother to actually read the regulations and would rather simply violate the law - like Ted Nugent. Nugent has a history of violating those "obscure" game regulations that everyone else seems to know.

The judge said he wasn't aware of that law either, and viewed the awareness the incident brought as a good thing. From what I can see he didn't harvest two bears. Rather, an earlier wounding counted towards his limit. That seems unusual to me. If I wound a deer but don't recover it despite making reasonable effort to do so, it doesn't count against my deer tag.

 

[Glitch]

The judge said he wasn't aware of that law either, and viewed the awareness the incident brought as a good thing. From what I can see he didn't harvest two bears. Rather, an earlier wounding counted towards his limit. That seems unusual to me. If I wound a deer but don't recover it despite making reasonable effort to do so, it doesn't count against my deer tag.

Since when is ignorance of the law a defense?

I read the fish and game regulations every season, because they always change. Fishing regulations in Alaska can change daily, so you need to read those regulations on the day you intend to fish to see if anything has changed.

If I am hunting or fishing in a State that I don't live in, I make absolutely certain to read the fish and game regulations very carefully first. That is just plain common sense. So Nugent's excuse that he was ignorant of the regulation is total BS. If he was ignorant of the law it was because he chose to be.

 

[RF667799]

Since when is ignorance of the law a defense?

I read the fish and game regulations every season, because they always change. Fishing regulations in Alaska can change daily, so you need to read those regulations on the day you intend to fish to see if anything has changed.

If I am hunting or fishing in a State that I don't live in, I make absolutely certain to read the fish and game regulations very carefully first. That is just plain common sense. So Nugent's excuse that he was ignorant of the regulation is total BS. If he was ignorant of the law it was because he chose to be.

I didn't defend it or excuse it. Just took note of a little info in your link.

I found it interesting that the Alaska State authorities didn't care to prosecute him, but bowed to the feds in the matter.

You say they'll protect you if you want to own a machinegun in defiance of the feds, though?

 

[Glitch]

I didn't defend it or excuse it. Just took note of a little info in your link.

I found it interesting that the Alaska State authorities didn't care to prosecute him, but bowed to the feds in the matter.

You say they'll protect you if you want to own a machinegun in defiance of the feds, though?

According to the Alaska Firearm Freedom Act of 2010, and updated in 2013:

A personal firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is possessed in this state or manufactured commercially or privately in this state and that remains in the state is not subject to federal law or federal regulation, including registration, under the authority of the United States Congress to regulate interstate commerce as those items have not traveled in interstate commerce.

The 2013 update to the Alaska Firearm Freedom Act now includes a penalty for anyone attempting to enforce federal law/regulation/rule pertaining to firearms:

A federal statute, regulation, rule, or order enacted or effective on or after the effective date of this Act is unenforceable in this state if the federal statute, regulation, rule, or order attempts to (1) ban or restrict ownership of a semiautomatic firearm or a magazine of a firearm; or (2) require a firearm, magazine, or other firearm accessory to be registered. An official, agent, or employee of the federal government who enforces, attempts to enforce a federal statute, regulation, rule, or order that is unenforceable under this section is guilty of a class B misdemeanor and may be punished as provided in AS 12.55.

 

[Rich2018]

The 2013 update to the Alaska Firearm Freedom Act now includes a penalty for anyone attempting to enforce federal law/regulation/rule pertaining to firearms:

If a federal agent was trying to enforce a federal law in Alaska, and an Alaskan sheriff/policeman tried to arrest him/her

Wouldn't the Alaskan cop be in the most trouble ?

 

[P_T]

Don't see what hunting in Alaska has to do with Gun ownership.
It seems to be a simply Annual hunting Regulations booklet &
your normal guides knowledge.
which 99.999% of us could give a sit on a Throne about !

 

[Rich2018]

 

[Manc Skipper]

The big fear used to justify gun ownership is "home invasion" There are 600 home invasions in the USA annually. The odds of it happening to you are tiny, but it's a huge fear, not helped by burglar alarm company advertisements. Gun suicide runs at around 18,000 a year. A much (x30) bigger risk, but nobody mentions it.

 

[Rich2018]

The big fear used to justify gun ownership is "home invasion" There are 600 home invasions in the USA annually. The odds of it happening to you are tiny, but it's a huge fear, not helped by burglar alarm company advertisements. Gun suicide runs at around 18,000 a year. A much (x30) bigger risk, but nobody mentions it.

Don't forget overthrowing tyrants.

 

[soylentgreen]

Why would it matter is you were in a war or not ?

He was talking about political, not military power.

It would matter on the understanding that there is a difference between an ideology such as mao had and a religion. That statement of his and his philosophy was created by living in a time when war was the only answer they had. We no longer live in that time. We can deal with mao's statement as a philosophy and question its meaning or we can treat it as a religion as your question could suggest and simply believe in it without caring it matters.

His philosophy and marx should be looked at as an historical philosophical contribution rather than as a religion to be followed without thought.

The question that should be posed first about his statement is whether it is still relevant today or is it possible to seek alternatives to war to create a change. ****ing philosophers rule one, always answer a question with a question.

 

[soylentgreen]

I use to hunt wild boar on Catalina Island in California. I am very aware of how dangerous they can be. Wild boar are also not predators.

While they have tusks that can do some serious damage, they only fight defensively. That is considerably different from predators that are equipped with tools designed for initiating attacks. Wolves, for example, are what they call "coursing predators" and can literally begin eating their prey while they are on the run. While other predators, like bears and cougars are ambush predators. They are built to surprise their prey and take them down quickly. Where coursing predators chase their prey long distances (usually in open terrain) before taking them down.

I would expect most dogs can deal with non-predators. Dogs are always harassing the moose in Alaska. Much to the moose's frustration, they are unable to stomp those annoying dogs as much as they might try. The dogs are just too fast for them. Predators, on the other hand, are a completely different story and one that will not end well for a domesticated dog.

You would probably like fishing in queensland australia. There rivers are full of crocodiles so fishing from a bank is a 50 /50 sport. Sometimes you catch something and some times something catches you.

 

[Rich2018]

It would matter on the understanding that there is a difference between an ideology such as mao had and a religion. That statement of his and his philosophy was created by living in a time when war was the only answer they had.

The 1776 Revolutionary colonists would also say that war was the only answer they had.

We no longer live in that time. We can deal with mao's statement as a philosophy and question its meaning or we can treat it as a religion as your question could suggest and simply believe in it without caring it matters.

His philosophy and marx should be looked at as an historical philosophical contribution rather than as a religion to be followed without thought.

The question that should be posed first about his statement is whether it is still relevant today or is it possible to seek alternatives to war to create a change. ****ing philosophers rule one, always answer a question with a question.

Mao's politics wasn't a religion

What he said about political power coming from the barrel of a gun is as true now as it was then
Whether in wartime or in peace.

 

[soylentgreen]

The big fear used to justify gun ownership is "home invasion" There are 600 home invasions in the USA annually. The odds of it happening to you are tiny, but it's a huge fear, not helped by burglar alarm company advertisements. Gun suicide runs at around 18,000 a year. A much (x30) bigger risk, but nobody mentions it.

Another big scare directed at women is that of rape. The pro gun advocate women get a gun as protection but as you say the stats on home invasion and rape by a complete stranger are small when compared to those of the chances of a women being raped by a person she knows, a family member , a fellow worker or more likely a man she met and has invited into the house. Situations in which she is unlikely to have a gun as in an office party or a reluctance to shoot as in a person she knows.

Unfortunately the pro gun look on suicide with a gun as a positive. Every persons right to kill themselves effectively.

 

[TurtleDude]

View attachment 67371889

Excalibur ExoMag Crossbow. I was on their pro staff once

 

[TurtleDude]

Another big scare directed at women is that of rape. The pro gun advocate women get a gun as protection but as you say the stats on home invasion and rape by a complete stranger are small when compared to those of the chances of a women being raped by a person she knows, a family member , a fellow worker or more likely a man she met and has invited into the house. Situations in which she is unlikely to have a gun as in an office party or a reluctance to shoot as in a person she knows.

Unfortunately the pro gun look on suicide with a gun as a positive. Every persons right to kill themselves effectively.

Claiming a gun is ineffective in some specific instances, for self defense is not a winning argument

 

[Rich2018]

Excalibur ExoMag Crossbow. I was on their pro staff once

Sensitivity is not your strong suit is it TD ?

 

[soylentgreen]

The 1776 Revolutionary colonists would also say that war was the only answer they had.



Mao's politics wasn't a religion

What he said about political power coming from the barrel of a gun is as true now as it was then
Whether in wartime or in peace.

And they would have been right as to the ideology of that day.
But we are probably divided on just what that ideology was. Most americans see noble men fighting a noble cause. Where as I would see a few selfish rich who would rather thousands of their country men die in a needless war so that a few can decide what tax they should pay.

Mao's thoughts can be treated as a religion if it is not pointed out why as you questioned, it matters.

It is a truth, not the truth. There are also ideologies of peace and fair trade.

 

[soylentgreen]

Claiming a gun is ineffective in some specific instances, for self defense is not a winning argument

Pointing out how badly the pro gun argue their case when trying to justify a gun to prevent rape is an effective way of once again demonstrating that all you have to offer is fear.

 

[Rich2018]

And they would have been right as to the ideology of that day.

And when, would you say, that ideology disappeared ?

But we are probably divided on just what that ideology was. Most americans see noble men fighting a noble cause.

Just that the criteria for "noble" is open to debate
I doubt if they see the Taliban fighters as "noble" for example.

Where as I would see a few selfish rich who would rather thousands of their country men die in a needless war so that a few can decide what tax they should pay.

That's pretty much how I view the American Revolution.

Mao's thoughts can be treated as a religion if it is not pointed out why as you questioned, it matters.

No, I can't see how you can see Mao's ideology as a religion.

It is a truth, not the truth. There are also ideologies of peace and fair trade.

Indeed
But what Mao said about political power coming from the barrel of a gun is THE truth
Because it does whether you're in revolutionary China or peaceful USA.

 

[Manc Skipper]

Claiming a gun is ineffective in some specific instances, for self defense is not a winning argument

Not just ineffective in some specific instances. Ineffective in some instances specifically used to gin up fear with to sell guns.

Guns will save you from home invasion! (a very rare event in itself) Unless you're asleep and naked when they enter the bedroom...

 

[Rich2018]

Not just ineffective in some specific instances. Ineffective in some instances specifically used to gin up fear with to sell guns.

Guns will save you from home invasion! (a very rare event in itself) Unless you're asleep and naked when they enter the bedroom...

So you're supporting the gun owner's justification of owning guns ?

 

[P_T]

Ahh yep most home invasions are because the perp has studied your habits for days. He expects you to be gone when he just busts thru your Basement window and slides in to your basement. but What If ? Most likely he has a strike object or a knife. What cha gonna do Your loved one is at home then ? if you don't train your family on self defense. U R so Screwed. I don't pretend to need a justification, I have it, Its my right and thats that ! U can ask a Hundred people who went thru home invasion thefts, they feel rapped. they weren't at home. those few who were most likely don't talk or walk very well anymore.

 

[TurtleDude]

Sensitivity is not your strong suit is it TD ?

No more than relevance is yours. what is there to be sensitive about-a guy shoots a bear. BFD. I'd never shoot a bear myself