-
Obama’s Imbroglios
May 23, 2013 | 41 comments
-
My Rahm Reunion
May 16, 2013 | 16 comments
-
The Left Hates Us
May 9, 2013 | 143 comments
-
Such a Dynamic Duo
May 2, 2013 | 49 comments
-
The Continuing Crisis
May 1, 2013 | 0 comments
The Current Crisis
Freedom to Hunt and More
Defending “the very essence of our liberty.”
WASHINGTON — My friend, Andrew Roberts, has inherited the title of Historian of the English-Speaking People, from Winston Churchill. Churchill wrote his four-volume history up to 1900. Roberts took the story from there and has written his stupendous History of the English-Speaking Peoples Since 1900. I commend it to you.
In that book Roberts says that there is something about the English-Speaking people that encourages a certain number among them to speak ill of us. He does not think that their criticism is legitimate for the most part, and I do not either. But it is a characteristic of certain of us. You never find that captious quality in Russia. Would Vladimir Putin say the kinds of things about Russia that, say, Barack Obama says about America? Would Hugo Chavez say such things about Venezuela, Fidel Castro about Cuba, Hu Jintao about China? Roberts’ case is made, and the Democratic Party and Labour Party offer plenty of examples to fortify his point.
Yet lay that observation aside for another day. He makes another case in his book worth mentioning. The English-Speaking people love liberty. I thought of this the other day when I read a piece in the Washington Post about the revival of fox hunting in Britain and the desire to legalize it once again. Ian Farquhar, an English hunter, leads the piece by saying that when the 2004 ban on fox hunting went into effect, “I felt — we all felt — they were spitefully taking away the very essence of our liberty.” Now the Conservative government is back and the law is up for repeal. What will happen I do not know, for the Conservatives are in a coalition with the Liberal Democrats and only a minority of them are with the Conservatives on this one. However, that is not the issue. Rather it is the question of “the very essence of our liberty.” It is a part of British tradition. Some have it. Some do not.
We have the tradition here, and it is seen by many as “the very essence of our liberty.” The right to keep and bear arms is actually written into our Constitution, in the Second Amendment. Guns are seen as essential to liberty by many of us. In many communities we can actually carry guns. There are studies that show that gun ownership and law abidingness correlate. There is a robust debate in America over gun ownership, but robust as it is it is unlikely that the gun controllers will ever outnumber the gun rights people. We are safe with our guns.
Yet let us look at another matter, the hunt itself. Over in Britain it is all tallyho, handsome attire, follow the pack. An occasional fox gets mauled, but that is one less fox for a farmer to gas or shoot, to trap or snare. If the hunt is legalized, rather than being restricted as it is now, there will be a few more foxes to be mauled. But attendant with the hunt are the festivities, and there are jobs for the keeper of kennels, stables, and the land managers. There is equipment to be maintained. The Countryside Alliance claims 45,000 members in some 300 clubs. During the winter months the countryside comes alive with activity. I say good show!
On this side of the Atlantic we do of course have the tallyho set. There are the hounds and horses, and stylish dress. Yet there is much more. North America is a continent and a pretty raw continent when the great outdoors is at issue. Some hunt for trophies, some for the feast after the hunt. I am numbered among the latter. I freely get up before the sun is in the sky and set up for turkey, deer, or even bear. But I am not a particularly avid hunter. Once when with my partner I shot a bear — or more likely he did — I had to follow the critter for two hours or more before it dropped. Not much fun — but when we got back to camp we told some great stories and there was a stupendous feast that night.
The important thing on this side of the Atlantic or the other is that English-Speaking people find liberty in the air. We relish our freedoms, and one is to hunt. I hope the present ban on fox hunting is repealed over there. Possibly I will even join in the fray. Though if I do, I shall ride at the back of the hunt. I would not want to incite a dog to carnage.
About the Author
R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr. is the founder and editor in chief of The American Spectator. He is the author of The Death of Liberalism, published by Thomas Nelson Inc. His previous books include the New York Times bestseller Boy Clinton: the Political Biography; The Impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton; The Liberal Crack-Up; The Conservative Crack-Up; Public Nuisances; The Future that Doesn’t Work: Social Democracy’s Failure in Britain; Madame Hillary: The Dark Road to the White House; The Clinton Crack-Up; and After the Hangover: The Conservatives’ Road to Recovery.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (57) | Leave a comment
More Articles by R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr.
More Articles From The Current Crisis
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/07/15/freedom-to-hunt-and-more
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Faffnir| 7.15.10 @ 8:27AM
My idea of deer hunting is to sit at the bar and say "Well, hello you little dear, come here often?"
Andrew Keirns| 7.15.10 @ 12:29PM
... 'dear' hunting is doe hunting, not deer hunting
Alan Brooks| 7.15.10 @ 4:01PM
"doe hunting"
As in "doe-eyed"? it's all a front: sugar and spice and everything nice.
Tim*| 7.15.10 @ 9:17AM
We dress Chris Dodd & Bawney Fwank up in fox costumes , cast the hounds and ride our field hunters over wall ,through creek , until we drive those two " faux foxes " to ground.
Then , We Partyyyyyyyyyy !
gypsy| 7.15.10 @ 9:28AM
If you think being on all fours after being chased by a bunch of guys wearing really fabulous outfits is some sort of punishment for Congressman Frank, then you are sorely mistaken
Robert | 7.15.10 @ 9:41AM
Too funny! I wish I thought of that.
WRTolkas| 7.15.10 @ 9:43AM
Dear Gypsy,
Please forgive any typos. I'm still laughing from your comment. Darn, I can't stop laughing. What a nasty vision in my head. What a hoot.
Regards,
WRTolkas
Maddox| 7.15.10 @ 11:14AM
My, you are sharp today!
Another good one.
Tim*| 7.15.10 @ 11:30AM
Until the hounds rip the livin' crap outta Him !
Ned| 7.15.10 @ 12:16PM
Not nice! You made coffee come out of my nose! LOLOL
Anthony| 7.15.10 @ 3:30PM
Yeah, baby!!!
Here comes Peter Cotton Tail,
hoppen down the bunny trail,
hippity, hoppity, Marxism's on
its way.....
soljerblue| 7.19.10 @ 11:31PM
Bravo, Gypsy, Bravo!!
Andrew Keirns| 7.15.10 @ 12:30PM
BFrank would love to be on the lamb ...
Alan Brooks| 7.15.10 @ 4:05PM
"If you think being on all fours after being chased by a bunch of guys wearing really fabulous outfits is some sort of punishment for Congressman Frank, then you are sorely mistaken"
Hey, you're not supposed to be funnier than the writers at AS! nobody loves a smartass :(
Alan Brooks| 7.15.10 @ 4:07PM
...usurper gypsy
:-(
Academic| 7.15.10 @ 9:44AM
The rights to hunt,fish and cut wood were among the demands announced during the 16th century peasant revolt in Germany. Thus hunting like bearing arms has always been a right of a free man. I support hunting and fishing even though my idea of roughing it is a Mariot. I do go to game dinners.
Alan Brooks| 7.15.10 @ 7:46PM
"In that book Roberts says that there is something about the English-Speaking people that encourages a certain number among them to speak ill of us."
As for America, you can't separate its hypercriticality from its Madisonism-- except in your mind (or in church, say). Conservatives ignore the deeper meaning of Churchill's dictum (truth IMO) "democracy is the worst system aside from the others". It means we are really no good, however our traditions are more evolved than kill-crazy dictatorships.
Doesn't the Bible say all our vanities are as rags? we do not live in a civilization-- we are barbaric.
Best quote I've read on the English is: "the Englishman is wise, he knows there has to be a certain amount of mischief in the world".
In other words, one might say, the Englishman accepts what cannot be changed, including fox hunting; even if fox hunting is mischief (I personally think it is very cruel) it is a tradition of centuries, perhaps traceable back to Roman times in Britain.
Alan Brooks| 7.15.10 @ 7:54PM
... yes I know there is a ban on fox hunting, but that doesn't mean the Englishman deep down LIKES the ban; if the ban on cock fighting were lifted in America, what would you see on the ground in many neighborhoods?...
feathers.
Dan Hirsch| 7.15.10 @ 9:55AM
Mr. Tyrrell,
My reaction to your piece is bifurcated:
At first read, this seems an innocuous musing on some personal experiences, a friend, a good read, enjoyable times spent recreating.
On reflecting of where you are writing, I find myself thinking, "No, no,no! The Constitution speaks as much about the right to hunt as it does about a right to privacy. What it does read, plainly, is that citizens, with their God-given rights, have a right to bear arms. While once a rifle was an important tool in providing sustenance, now it's far less effective than a shopping cart. The founding fathers were reinforcing the citizenry's position vis a vis tyrannical, constitutional officers. We must mustn't confuse the basis of this right, lest we offer those whose lifelong ambition is the removal and reduction of our rights a foothold to go after the second of our ten Rights.
Conservatism is an endless battle; we must never give a inch...sic.
Nolite conculare me!
Alan Brooks| 7.15.10 @ 8:19PM
"The rights to hunt,fish and cut wood were among the demands announced during the 16th century peasant revolt in Germany"
1941- '45, the Germans proved they were the best hunters who ever lived.
soljerblue| 7.19.10 @ 11:34PM
well, they sure didn't have any trouble finding Paris. :-)
Petronius| 7.15.10 @ 10:07AM
Freedom for all of us is a relative term. For myself, so long as anybody with authority be it state sanctioned or otherwise restricts my activities, I am not free. Others protest in the belief that the rigors of life and necessity to support oneself are oppressive. Others engage in litigation and legislative efforts to prohibit what they hate. 4 people from California came to my state and successfully campaigned to outlaw cock fights; a disgusting practice but not their purview.
Then we have the environmentalists and other political parasites like the Center For Science in the Public (?) Interest suing Mcdonalds because bleeding our commerce beats working for a living and spiteful juries aid and abet them so they may brag to their friends that, "we nailed those bastards." And these settlements produce nothing except higher cost of living. But the worst of the lot are the social reformers who are on a mission. To quote President Obama, "be made more perfect." Such pronouncements are the height of arrogance and despotism.
It is long past time that all those in this litany get put on notice. Give us back Our Freedom. We will do all we can to regain it.
Restrictions on freedom should be directed at the behaviors that have social costs through demonstrable harm to others. Predators should be eliminated. Perverts and parasites should be banished. People who don't engage in such behavior are being taxed for the results and effects of those who do. Otherwise, we should keep our hands to ourselves and mind our own business.
Alan Brooks| 7.15.10 @ 8:07PM
Italians are my second favorite people (Jews come 3rd),
especially the late Mario Puzo; from the 'Godfather':
"gratitude erodes more quickly than beauty."
Wisest of all:
"always let your enemies overestimate your vices, and your friends underestimate your virtues."
(trouble is distinguishing your friends from your enemies)
Machiavelli is the starting point of "modern" philosophy: in chapter 15 of the Prince he writes of how being good is no defense against the wicked-- the wicked would soon kill off all the good. So a certain amount of mischief by the good must be practiced. machiavelli should be an Honorary Englishman. And don't forget that those who dislike Machiavelli might dislike him partly because he was more Machiavellian they are. But of course!
Alan Brooks| 7.15.10 @ 8:10PM
"(trouble is distinguishing your friends from your enemies)"
PS,
our worst enemies might be friends who give bad advice.
REB| 7.20.10 @ 12:51AM
You said a mouthfull man! The time has come for freemen and women to draw the line way back behind the commie scum.....then drive them back over it and keep driving them till they have no room to run...then squish them,or face a thousand years of darkness as these diseased freaks stamp liberty into the recesses of a few mens minds!
KyMouse| 7.15.10 @ 10:20AM
My friends in England who don't fox hunt nevertheless miss it, because they have more pesky foxes to contend with around their chicken coops.
Around here, the problem is deer. I know lots of people who feel so sorry for deer when they are killed by hunters (or cars), but I once met a woman who runs a refuge for injured wildlife who disagreed.
Although she was dedicated to caring for injured wildlife, including a young deer that had been blinded during crop-spraying, she said that she was not against deer-hunting.
"They don't die in their beds," I remember her saying. "If a hunter doesn't kill them, they are likely at some point to get botflies [I think that was the word] in their ears and then in their brains. The deer walk around in circles until they starve to death."
Stuffed animals that look like foxes and deer are cute, but the real thing can be very destructive. And, as that woman said, they don't die in their beds.
Bohemond| 7.15.10 @ 12:13PM
In fact, there are more whitetail deer in Virginia today than there were when Capt. John Smith first sloshed ashore. The Indians didn't do tags and bag limits; and back then there were wolves and mountain lions to cull the herds. At least as important: there weren't farmer's fields and suburban gardens to provide all-you-can-eat buffets for the buggers, which have become a pest for agriculturalists and a menace on the highways.
KyMouse| 7.15.10 @ 12:19PM
Bohemond, I think it was AmSpec that had an excellent article about this a few years back.
The author pointed out that it isn't that we humans have moved into the deer's territory -- they move into our suburbs, where the livin' is as easy for them as it is for us. I know far too many people who put out corn for the deer; why forage when you can have your food handed to you?
Day after day, I pass neighborhoods in which there are deer on people's lawns. "Rats with hooves," they've been called, and we encourage them to come to our homes.
REB| 7.20.10 @ 12:57AM
Funny how any creature when presented with a handout will soon forget how to get his own and live on the welfare...soon they then demand the handout by tearing things up,people or critters,Im a farmer so I get to see this play out day by day.Obama and his ilk understand this very well,something to think about.
PBurns | 7.15.10 @ 11:18AM
You are missing a bit here .... there is no freedom to hunt unless there is access to land. In the UK, the land was owned by the rich, and the poor were fenced out (this was called the Enclosure Movement). In the U.S., however, we created National Forests, State Forests, and Wildlife Refuge's, all of which allow hunting. We have additional hunting on over 30 million acres of "Conservation Reserve Program" lands and even more hunting on Pittman-Robertson lands. All of this hunting is made possible by Government programs created and crafted with bipartisan support., and the abundance of wildlife we now have in this country is due to Government regulation, based on sound science funded by the taxpayers who pay most of the freight for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (only a portion of the USFWS is paid for by hunting licenses). My point here is not political, but simply to say that in America we have done it right, and part of doing it right has been creating public lands and creating public-funded, science-based wildlife management.
http://www.terrierman.com
Bohemond| 7.15.10 @ 12:17PM
Historically most hunting was done on private land, or "wilderness" not yet owned by anybody. A typical 19th-century farm, at least in the Southeast, was half (or more) uncleared woodland. The 20th century bureaucratization of what was once open country is hardly to be credited for the American tradition of pot-hunting.
REB| 7.20.10 @ 1:12AM
While the first part of your statement is true,your premise that govt had a hand in doing something right is a stretch.
Americans were a different breed,freedom wasnt an option, it was the way it was,we are not in a fraction as free as they were,the idea that govt sealing off the land and critters and then charging a fee to use them isnt kin to that spirit of liberty they knew. Modern lawmakers make no provision for survival,for the commons which was another freedom idea the English had,America had wilderness that were considered commons where a man could make his way with just his wits. But like the english commons Americas wilderness was co-opted by the rich and corporations working with govt to make people less able to surviv e outside the system. You want meat? you gotta buy it, you want a house you gotta buy it,no more commons when people can get by if they have no money,just govt welfare and entitlements designed to break the independence,you and all that pertains to you belongs to the state, to the lords of the manor,Americans are once again serfs owned by the master and subject to his whims...all the while thinking they are free.The lords have never tolerated freedom,for long,ask the American Indian,or the Irish , or the cowboys or........
Ken (Old Texican)| 7.15.10 @ 12:21PM
Mr. Tyrrell
Now today is the quality of writing every one of us so look forward to here at TAS. Thank you.
You have pricked my, (possibly paranoid, smile), imagination here.
""I felt -- we all felt -- they were spitefully taking away the very essence of our liberty.""
But you know what? In 2004 the damned British government still outlawed the hunt...didn't they?
I do quietly reflect upon our "essence of liberty". Our very...very... last resort to stopping tyranny.
My cousin, a world famous economist...dollar a year man for thirty years etc. ...wrote his doctoral dissertation ON THE ECONOMIC CONSEQUENCES OF GUNPOWDER AND PROJECTILE WEAPONS.
His thesis was that for the very first time in history, any peasant could kill any king he could see over open sights....without a lifetime of practice. Peasants were no longer simply pawns to be thrown away....but rather Knights...with truly deadly effect.
OOPs!
Kings and Nobles had to start "sharing the wealth", or simply risk being blown away....and perhaps by their own peasants.
Pitchforks were no longer derigeur ((sic?)
Our country's founders were so absolutely, painfully, aware that standing in straight lines and exchanging volley fire with British regulars...was only part of a winning strategy against tyranny.
Though they might not use the term "snipers", they certainly understood the concept....and the effectiveness...of standing and firing from behind trees on British march routes.
They did not enjoy smokeless powder in those days. One shot...and run like hell away from the muzzle smoke.
Well, enough said except to remind us all of the society of "Cincinatus".
So, Mr. Tyrrell,
At least in Texas, and many other parts of fly-over country… Compulsory gun registration and/or confiscation like Britain and Australia experienced will not be attempted here......except and until a man's wife and children...loved ones... are held hostage, through quiet starvation if nothing else.
So,
People here in the US bent on dictatorship and tyranny must...simply must.....utilize the stealth approach to castrating patriots.
Sir,
They seem to be doing so very effectively. They are busily breaking hearts and breaking spirits with every day that goes by. I can read doom every day here in the hearts of some.
"Fight or flight"...the basest of human reactions to a threat.
As I have stated very clearly on my web-site...
( www.myteamusa.org ) , there are a LOT of folks who have decided to fight. I have stated that " There are a lot of trigger-happy nutcases on both ends of the spectrum, spoiling for a gun-fight."
But you know, I simply cannot quite forget Obama envisioning a "civilian national police force" equal to our present military. I simply cannot.
So...
"fight or flight". Is one form of "flight" simply hiding in our homes and businesses until they come for us...one at a time?
I ask, once again, what will be the catalyst for the American people to go on offense? What will be the signal?
I have already written my death sentence with my posts the last few days. Accepted.
If my silence here can be heads up to fellow Americans...well Look for me at Jesus' feet.
Best regards
Ken http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....re=related
Al Adab| 7.15.10 @ 3:43PM
Ken,
I note that Texas filed an amicus brief in the Arizona lawsuit. So, notwithstanding Gov. Perry's confusing comments the Great Lone Star Republic is in the fight.
Ken (Old Texican)| 7.15.10 @ 7:30PM
Al Adab
I wrote at length about this a couple of days ago.
Texas is too damned big in the national energy economy.
We gotta' win that war....first.
Al Adab| 7.15.10 @ 9:16PM
True enough. Different states clearly have different priorities. One of the best things about Federalism.
Derek Leaberry| 7.15.10 @ 1:07PM
Not only do I support fox hunting, after raising chickens for three years, I fully support cockfighting as well. Nasty beasts.
George True| 7.15.10 @ 1:09PM
"...spitefully taking away the very essence of our liberty". -way to bring the discussion back on point, Ken.
That phrase crystallizes the feeling I have had for years now as I have watched the leftists in our government take away our choices in healthcare, attempt to take away our 2nd amendment rights, attempt to shut down talk radio and internet, attempt to muzzle opposition free speech prior to elections, and enable the growth of several alien subcultures in our midst (Islam and La Raza).
If we do not take back the reins of power in November, then I fear we may be in for a long dark ages similar to what Russia suffered from 1917 to 1989.
Paul Milenkovic| 7.15.10 @ 1:53PM
I have nothing against "harvesting deer", but the "hunting lobby" can be at times a "dumber-rer" version of the Bambi lobby, and in some ways these two opposites are in collaboration.
This whole business of hunting in modern times is a grand "taking" and disrespect of property rights. You see with the tags and the bag limits and the licenses and the grudgingly accepted "earn a buck" programs and all, we are overrun with these hooved pests and destroyers of crops and private managed forests.
Geez Loueez, with the even stupider White Tails Unlimited "turn in poachers" movement, the Cult-of-the-Trophy-Buck, we are practicing conservation hunting practices on what has become a pest? These things are not "wildlife", they are a form of "open-range cattle", and this whole deer hunting movement is starting up the rancher-vs-open range cattle drover range war all over again.
There are two things un-PC that I like more than anything. One is enjoying a nice beef steak and the other is driving my car wherever I please. This deer thing is spreading disease into the cattle population to take away my beef steak, and I don't have any appetite for venison after the Wisconsin CWD outbreak (a form of "mad cow disease'). And car-deer collisions are making my car insurance expensive.
With have a CWD outbreak where I live, and the logical solution would have been to hire professional sharpshooters to go around in helicopters and erradicate every last deer in the outbreak zone and start over. But no, it is left up to hunters with increased "permits" to do this, and this has dragged on for years. The Don't Shoot Bambi crowd (I suppose it is OK to take out Bambi with the front end of your Prius) has teamed up with the Hunting Lobby to go to these stupid hearings on the CWD problem to protest the erradication program.
These guys don't want hunting to be a sport, they just want to kill something for the blood-rush thrill of it, and we are so overrun with deer you cannot even grow a tree on your land from a seedling anymore.
ken (Old Texican)| 7.15.10 @ 2:02PM
Thanks Geore True.
I picture a different scenario. The communists, (pardon the shorthand), have too stupidly been blabbing their strategy.
I think if we fail in November...we see a national strike among critical industries people.
After that depends upon the communists' reaction.
George True| 7.15.10 @ 2:02PM
This is completely off-topic, but Paul's comments about the deer overpopulation taking away his beef steak reminded me of something funny I heard last week. Andrew Breitbart was guest hosting Mark Levin's radio show, and one of the callers made a comment about the food Nazis wanting to get people to convert to vegetarianism. Whereupon Breitbart proclaimed, "I would rather die than live in a world without beef!". I laughed out loud, and snorted coffee out my nose as a result.
Hangshai| 7.15.10 @ 2:20PM
This article is ridiculous, and this sentiment of our right to bear arms for "hunting" is ridiculous. Our right to bear arms is to protect us from a tyrannical government. Period.
Orion| 7.15.10 @ 5:38PM
Mr. Tyrrell,
Thank you for a wonderfully written and very enjoyable article. After reading through the comments above, I had to comment on the refreshingly pleasant and intelligent discussion about the issue by your readers. Perhaps you filter the trolls into oblivion on your site (if so, thank you), or maybe the quality of TAS's writing is its own deterrent to the foolish. Either way, the absence of the idiotic bile that has infected the comment sections of many blogs is wonderful to behold.
Hangshai:
As I read this article, Mr. Tyrrell is not saying that our right to bear arms is specifically "for" hunting, rather that hunting is but one of the many ways we exercise the right to bear arms. The main point seems clear to me:
"The important thing on this side of the Atlantic or the other is that English-Speaking people find liberty in the air. We relish our freedoms, and one is to hunt. I hope the present ban on fox hunting is repealed over there. "
Why is it ridiculous to discuss ONE of the ways English-speaking people exercise their right to use firearms? Our right to keep and bear arms, liberal constitutional interpretation notwithstanding, does not limit our freedom to use firearms to any one specific purpose. The need for armed citizens ready to defend against tyranny was very real when the Second Amendment was written. The framers saw a need to ensure that we would always have the freedom to rise up and oppose tyrannical government with deadly force. This was not the only reason, simply the most important reason for the Second Amendment. They wanted to preserve, not only our right to bear arms generally, but ALSO the specific right to bear them against the government if the need arose.
Your comment seems to suggest that because the primary purpose of the framers' inclusion of the right to bear arms in the Constitution was to protect ourselves from tyranny, that this is the only acceptable exercise of that freedom and that any desire to protect or to celebrate the use of those arms beyond that scope is ridiculous. With the exception of criminal activity, I say that the more Americans there are who use and enjoy using their guns for recreational purposes the better off we all are. If there was no hunting or recreational shooting in America, I think that our will to fight for the preservation of the Second Amendment would have succumbed to the reasoning employed by the anti-gun left long ago. The peace and prosperity we have enjoyed since our founding has convinced many of our countrymen that we are immune from the threat of tyranny as envisioned by the founders in drafting the Second Amendment. It has been the hunters and recreational shooters who, with their “ridiculous” sentiments, have fought tooth and nail to keep the Second Amendment alive.
sanrita| 7.15.10 @ 6:53PM
Oh put a sock in your nose before a bird takes a crap in it since it's so high in the air. This post sounds like it comes from a pretensious, marbles in your mouth English person who has too much time on his hands when he's not murdering innocent creatures. And I'm not an anti-gun person - if I had the inclination, I would buy a Glock or AK-47 and take out BP's CEOs and others who think they're above it all - fortunately I don't have the inclination so it will just have to remain a fantasy. Thanks.
sanrita| 7.15.10 @ 6:48PM
Oh please, we have no more 'right' to hunt animals than we have a right to hunt BP CEO's and shoot them in the head and they deserve it more. If you like your bloodthirsty sports, take up boxing and get your fat lip bashed in. Thanks.
Ken (Old Texican)| 7.15.10 @ 7:36PM
sanrita,
I'm sorry. I just can't fix stupid. and you my dear are simply stupid.
Are you a vegetarian? Good ! Vegetarians taste good. heh.
sanrita| 7.16.10 @ 12:59AM
Right. Call stupid anyone that doesn't agree with your ridiculous empty persona. If brains were chocolate, yours would be the size of an M&M, so don't talk stupid, stupid.
soljerblue| 7.19.10 @ 11:48PM
If you want to make a case instead of a rant, please explain why you feel those who hunt -- as do I -- are somehow inferior to you. So far all your posts have done is prove you're a potty mouth with a limited intellect.
REB| 7.20.10 @ 1:39AM
The founders of this nation and folks before and since have certainly believed they had a right to hunt,Im sure you dont think they had any sense but as I farm for my dinner and hunting is a big part of that lifestyle,I have to take issue with you on that statement.
There are two ways to live,one is in the natural order,hunting , fishing and farming,the other is selling your time for a few scraps of paper to exchange for some vestige of food at wally world, and the use of a numbered cubicle in a cul-de-sac in exchange for your lifesblood and sweat.
The first way is freedom, the second is serfdom and while its nearly impossible to be completely independent nowdays its where I choose to try to live,I have no paying job, no insurance, no doctor and what I have is paid for,no bills except the rent (taxes)I have to pay to the lord of the manor to be able to keep what is mine,he has too much influence in my life and yours but unlike you I spit in his eye when I can and harvest one of his stags in his forest when I get the urge to have some venison! And yes I consider it not only my right to do so, but my duty to do all I can do to defy the self exalted lords,dont care if folks like it or not!
TaterSalad| 7.15.10 @ 8:00PM
To pay a deductible or not with the New Obamacare? It will cost us more!
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/.....1EED23.DTL
D. Singh| 7.16.10 @ 3:33AM
Sir
You are right. On both sides of the Atlantic men regard liberty as a most treasured possession.
Here is Clause 29 of the Magna Carta (The Great Charter of England, 1215) which is the inheritance of all our children on both sides of the Atalantic:
‘NO Freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, or be disseised of his Freehold, or Liberties, or free Customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any other wise destroyed; nor will We not pass upon him, nor condemn him, but by lawful judgment of his Peers, or by the law of the land. We will sell to no man, we will not deny or defer to any man either Justice or Right.’
Americans need to remember that on the famous field of Runnymede where the wicked King John was forced to concede rights to the people – a portion of that field is the sovereign territory of the United States of America.
And let us not forget that the brilliant General Patton’s family claimed to be either directly or indirectly descended from many signatories to the Great Charter of England.
When the first settlers arrived in the colonies they brought with them the principles of English law as espoused by such famous lawyers as Chief Justice Sir Edward Coke. There was no vacuum in American law.
The legislative attack on fox-hunting in England was driven by socialist spite. It is a fundamental attack upon one of the great conservative values: the freedom of men to associate.
But, let us also not forget that our ideas of freedom, law, justice, order and sweet liberty are traceable to concepts in the Bible. For example, we Judaeo-Christians are taught that all men are made in the image of God and that inspired our ancestors to enshrine the principle of equality before the law: the butler and the lord are to have the same status before the law. Every man is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty.
But once more a great shadow is falling across Europe; a new tyranny is arising by stealth, by deception, by lies: the European Union which seeks to abolish the nation-state and destroy liberty, freedom and security.
Please pray that God will raise once more men on this island to roar like the British lions of old.
Amen.
Tucci78 | 7.16.10 @ 5:28AM
--
Writes Mr. Tyrrell:
"In many communities we can actually carry guns. "
Wrong. In ALL communities, the American can "actually carry guns."
It is the right of the American, protected by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (said protection extended to the citizens of the several states by the "privileges and immunities" clause of the Fourteenth Amendment), to carry guns any damned place he pleases.
It is simply that the officers of certain civil governments in these United States criminally violate that right by way of ordinances which defy the U.S. Constitution and therefore have no real standing in law.
Let's keep the point clear. If it is "conservative" to regard as legitimate a law which violates individual rights, I am emphatically NOT a conservative.
--
Vasu Murti | 7.16.10 @ 10:34AM
Hunting is condemned in the Judeo-Christian tradition.
According to the Torah (Genesis 6:9), Noah is honored as a "tzaddik," or a righteous man. Commentators say this is because he provided charity ("tzedakah") for so many animals on the ark. The high level of awareness and concern given to the care and feeding of the animals aboard the ark reflects the traditional Jewish value of not causing harm to animals, or "tsa’ar ba’alei chayim."
This moral principle—officially set down as law in the Torah and elaborated upon in the Talmud (Shabbat 128b), the medieval commentaries and the Responsa literature—permeates the many legends that grew up around the leading figures in the Torah and in Jewish history.
Kindness to animals was so valued by the Jewish tradition; it was also considered an important measure of a person’s piety, compassion and righteousness. From this value emerged the stories about how shepherds such as Moses and David were elevated to national leadership because of their compassion for their lambs.
There are also many "maysehs," or moralistic folktales in Judaism about sages who rescued or fed stray cows and hungry chickens, watered thirsty horses and freed caged birds.
In the Talmud (Eruvin 100b), Rabbi Yochanon teaches, "Even if we had not been given the Torah, we still would have learned modesty from the cat, honesty from the ant, chastity from the dove, and good manners from the rooster. Thus, the animals should be honored."
According to the Talmud (Shabbat 77b), the entire creation is to be respected: "Thou thinkest that flies, fleas, mosquitos are superfluous, but they have their purpose in creation as a means of a final outcome...Of all that the Holy One, Blessed be He, created in His world, he did not create a single thing without purpose."
The Talmud (Avodah Zorah 18b) also forbids association with hunters. Rabbi Ezekiel Landau (1713-93) was once asked by a man if he could hunt on his large estate. The rabbi replied:
"In the Torah the sport of hunting is imputed only to fierce characters like Nimrod and Esau, never to any of the patriarchs and their descendants...I cannot comprehend how a Jew could even dream of killing animals merely for the pleasure of hunting...When the act of killing is prompted by that of sport, it is downright cruelty."
The Talmud (Gittin 62a) further teaches that one should not own a domestic or wild animal or even a bird if he cannot properly care for it. Although there is no general rule forbidding animal cruelty, so many biblical commandments call for humane treatment, the talmudic rabbis explicitly declared compassion for animals to be biblical law (Shabbat 128b).
The medieval work Sefer Chasidim, or The Book of the Pious, says, "Be kind and compassionate to all creatures that the Holy One, Blessed be He, created in this world. Never beat nor inflict pain on any animal, beast, bird or insect. Do not throw stones at a dog or a cat, nor should ye kill flies or wasps."
According to Shulhan Aruch, the Orthodox Code of Jewish Law, no special blessings are given for meat dishes. "It is not fitting to bless God over something which He created and which man has slain." It is also forbidden to celebrate the acquisition of a leather garment. Similarly, it is a custom never to wear leather shoes on Yom Kippur. "One does not ask for forgiveness of sins while wearing articles made from the skins of slaughtered animals."
Shulhan Aruch teaches: "It is forbidden, according to the Torah, to hurt any living creature. It is, on the contrary, one’s duty to save any living creature, be he ownerless, or if he belongs to a non-Jew."
Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch taught, "The boy, who in crude joy, finds delight in the convulsions of an injured beetle or the anxiety of a suffering animal will also be dumb towards human pain."
British historian William Lecky noted, "Tenderness towards animals is one of the most beautiful features of the Old Testament."
Reverend J.R. Hyland, author of God's Covenant with Animals (it's available through PETA), notes:
"The Christian voices that were raised in protest against the wanton murder of animal beings were ignored. Even the repugnance toward hunting and hunters that was encoded in Catholic Canon Law, was ignored. 'Esau was a hunter because he was a sinner; and in the Holy scriptures we do not find a single holy man being a hunter.' (From the Corpus Juris Canonici. Rome, 1582.)"
"Thanks be to God!" wrote John Wesley, founder of Methodism, to the Bishop of London in 1747. "Since the time I gave up the use of flesh-meats and wine, I have been delivered from all physical ills." Wesley was a vegetarian for spiritual reasons as well. He based his vegetarianism on the Biblical prophecies concerning the Kingdom of Peace, where "on the new earth, no creature will kill, or hurt, or give pain to any other." He further taught that animals "shall receive an ample amends for all their present sufferings."
Wesley's teachings placed an emphasis on inner religion and the effect of the Holy Spirit upon the consciousness of such followers. Wesley taught that animals will attain heaven: in the "general deliverance" from the evils of this world, animals would be given vigor, strength and swiftness...to a far higher degree than they ever enjoyed."
Wesley urged parents to educate their children about compassion towards animals. He wrote: "I am persuaded you are not insensible of the pain given to every Christian, every humane heart, by those savage diversions, bull-baiting, cock-fighting, horse-racing, and hunting."
In a 1991 article entitled “Hunting: What scripture Says,” Rick Dunkerly of Christ Lutheran Church, observes:
“There are four hunters mentioned in the Bible: three in Genesis and one in Revelation. The first hunter is named Nimrod in Genesis 10:8-9. He is the son of Cush and founder of the Babylonian Empire, the empire that opposes God throughout scripture and is destroyed in the Book of Revelation. In Micah 5:6, God’s enemies are said to dwell in the land of Nimrod. Many highly reputable evangelical scholars such as Barnhouse, Pink and Scofield regard Nimrod as a prototype of the anti-Christ.
“The second hunter is Ishmael, Abraham’s ‘son of the flesh’ by the handmaiden, Hagar. His birth is covered in Genesis 16 and his occupation in 21:20. Ishmael’s unfavorable standing in scripture is amplified by Paul in Galatians 4:22-31.
“The third hunter, Esau, is also mentioned in the New Testament. His occupation is contrasted with his brother (Jacob) in Genesis 25:27. In Hebrews 12:16 he is equated with a ‘profane person’ (KJV). He is a model of a person without faith in God. Again, Paul elucidates upon this model unfavorably in Romans 9:8-13, ending with the paraphrase of Malachi 1:2-3: ‘Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.’
“The fourth hunter is found in Revelation 6:2, the rider of the white horse with the hunting bow. Scholars have also identified him as the so-called anti-Christ. Taken as a group, then, hunters fare poorly in the Bible. Two model God’s adversary and two model the person who lives his life without God.
“In scripture,” notes Dunkerly, “the contrast of the hunter is the shepherd, the man who gently tends his animals and knows them fully. The shepherds of the Bible are Abel, Jacob, Joseph, Moses and David. Beginning in the 23rd Psalm, Jesus is identified as ‘the Good Shepherd.’
“As for hunting itself, both the Psalms and Proverbs frequently identify it with the hunter of souls, Satan. His devices are often called ‘traps’ and ‘snares,’ his victims ‘prey.’ Thus, in examining a biblical stance on the issue of hunting, we see the context is always negative, always dark in contrast to light...premeditated killing, death, harm, destruction. All of these are ramifications of the Fall. When Christ returns, all of these things will be ended...
“Of all people,” Dunkerly concludes, “Christians should not be the destroyers. We should be the healers and reconcilers. We must show NOW how it will be THEN in the Peaceable Kingdom of Isaiah 11:6 where ‘the wolf shall lie down with the lamb...and a little child shall lead them.’
"We can begin now within our homes and churches by teaching our children respect and love for all of God’s creation...”
REB| 7.20.10 @ 1:59AM
Hmmm,that book you call Genisis,or the book of beginnings says that God himself slew animals and made clothing for Man and Woman.
God also told Peter after Peter protested his good law abiding upbringing,that he was to kill and eat and to not call anything unclean that he(God) had made clean,Jesus ate meat,as did most all the keepers of the temple who ate of the daily sacrifices,so the religious argument against hunting would seem to hold little water.(I agree in one point, that hunting for entertainment has no real value or merit,hunting should best be kept in the realm of feeding ones self.)
And even if all you state were true we live in a different promised land,a land where folks chose to live a bit differently,and eating meat and hunting are definatly part of this culture,the words of people who oppose a man feeding his self and family ring hollow especially when those same people will eat meat without reservation...as long as certain rules are followed,you believe what you choose,Ill keep my freedom to eat what I see fit, and to exercise what I believe.
jes| 7.24.10 @ 6:05AM
Vasu, I could pick apart every proposition you have made, but the time consumed in bring to light all the falsehoods you have postulated, would not be worth my time and effort. Suffice to say, you have been mislead, and you, yourself are misleading those who you would convince of your argument.
Perhaps you should begin again to read the Good Book that you quote, instead of taking someone's word for what it means. Your intermixing your own teachers opinion with what you interpret is not going to bring you to the truth, it is only bringing you to another's opinion.
Genesis 9
God's Covenant With Noah
1 Then God blessed Noah and his sons, saying to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the earth. 2 The fear and dread of you will fall upon all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air, upon every creature that moves along the ground, and upon all the fish of the sea; they are given into your hands. 3 Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything.
As far as the "Judeo-Christian tradition" goes, in my neck of the woods, that is all the authority we need.