From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Colorado Hunters under attack
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 06:25:53 GMT

sherw@ocf.berkeley.edu (Gregory Sherwin) writes:

>In article <viking.726218466@vincent1.iastate.edu> viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) writes:
>>	We still don't use AK-47's for hunting, and again your ignorance

>Joke was intended here - perhaps I forgot to add the smiley faces for some
>folks.

	You had best add smileys when you mention AK-47's as hunting
rifles.  Though I've used an AR-15 as a varmint weapon (and a darned nice
one too!), the current reasoning of a "legitimate sporting purpose" as
the criterion for a particular weapon's legality hits very close to home
here, and provided insight that you didn't have any great knowledge of
either hunting or firearms. 

>>However, my heritage
>>involved burning large tracts of English and Irish villages and enslaving

>There is a "hunting heritage", but rather that this heritage from the standpoint
>of hunting being a recreational (vs. survival) activity deserves preservation
>no more than burning large tracts of English and Irish villages and enslaving
>those who lived there, in addition to being a philosophical
>fallacy.

	A philosophical fallacy?  As in where I mention burning villiages is
a part of my ancestry but not my heritage?  Hunting has been a recreational
activity, like it or not, since well before Europe quit sending kids to
free the Holy Land.  In addition to being recreational and enjoyable, hunting
sometimes provides food, an excellent reason to continue hunting.  The
success rate varies, and is never certain, but there are no moral strings
tied to an act simply because it isn't strictly needed or because it is
enjoyable.  In addition, reflect upon the fact that humans seem to be the
only animals with a clear sense of the passage of time.  Hunter-gatherer
societies gave way to domesticated plants and livestock because it was
seen that the latter provided food for later, while the former gave food
only as it was found.  Contrast this with hunting, where the hunter may
not particularly need food today, but can ensure food for the next three
weeks should he find game and make a good shot.  Ethical?  I don't see
why one needs to be without food to hunt, and why one cannot enjoy the
hunt just as some enjoy tilling a garden.

>>Be it Sgt. York in World War II or Bernie Goetz, survival
>>is enhanced with hunting skills, and furthermore one would do well to
>>realize that owning firearms is not a right because of hunting, but that
>>it is a right because the purpose of the 2nd amendment is to ensure a
>>militia that is well-armed to provide a deterrent to tyrrany and to, as
>>a last resort, overthrow a corrupt or tyrannical government.  You can
>>try to ban hunting and say that we have advanced beyond that sort of
>>thing, but so long as you think of hunting only as a "sport" similar to
>>bowling you conveniently ignore the most basic reasons for hunting and
>>firearm ownership and usage being a right.

>Hold on a minute folks - how did we get from hunting to the 2nd amendment
>all of a sudden!?

	It's an additional reason, though not the primary one.  It simply
shows another reason (with evidence and pointers provided) where hunting
and the skills honed therein are applicable beyond the simple gathering of
food, and that society has not evolved such that it is not applicable to
modern day life.

>I just don't
>see that a right to bear arms and the insurance of a militia equates
>to the ethical right to kill animals for the fun of it.

	But it does.  See, there are people who think I have to be
literally starving before I can ethically kill an animal for food.
Likewise, there are people who believe I must never own a firearm or
other weapon because I might cause harm to another animal, which is
unethical.  The base line here is that neither thought is at all
within the realm of the law in the USA, and that furthermore each
shows somebody else all too happy to tell me what is moral, proper, and
in my best interest.  Despite you having never once provided any
insight on how you can ascertain that hunters kill only for the fun
of it, your message tone has consistently implied that I am
a hunter only because I enjoy watching things die and that I do not
understand the real travesty my actions put upon the environment.
This sort of self-rightous zealotry is responsible for many bad laws
and quite a few rights infringed because somebody else wants to feel
good at our expense.  Given your AK-47 jibe at the top, it is little
wonder that I pointed you towards another argument using the same
lack of logic as justification.

>Perhaps if this country is one day overrun by a tyrannical electorate of
>black-tailed deer, I will think differently.

	It's being over-run by the evil fat-bellied stogie sucker, but
I digress...

>Again - you are confusing guns with hunting.  There is a distinct
>difference to which you seem blind to.

	There is also a distinct overlap you seem unwilling to
acknowledge.  Hunting is an act, I agree, and guns only a tool
employed in that act (among others), but the overlap is where
the act of hunting sharpens skills beneficial to survival in
other areas, and where the taking of a life is not the utmost
criterion for an act being ethical or moral.  In addition, the
heritage you spoke of originally is one of firearms as much as it
is of hunting.  Thus, firearms made their way into the discussion.

< Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu viking@iastate.edu >
<  ISU only censors what I read, not what I say.  Don't blame them.  >
<  "Are you *SURE* he's worth a Harley-Davidson?" -- my grandmother  >
< to my girlfriend, about me.  "I'd better not say" -- my girlfriend >