Email
PrintA bridge not far enough
Valley Forum
In the understandable urgency to reduce gun violence, it is unfortunate our president agreed that it is a reasonable use of guns to shoot wildlife to death for sport.
Accepting the recreational killing of other sentient beings is incongruent with any rational examination of ways to reduce gun violence by and among the supposedly more intelligent of them.
To shield hunting from any responsibility for our gun-obsessed culture implies a timid surrender to a disturbing notion. Namely, that to cajole the gun-obsessed to accept mild – and Constitutional - restraints in the name of public safety, they must be assured they can use their guns to kill something – anything – while waiting to defend hearth and home against a mythical tyrannical government or marauding criminals. Else, what’s a gun for?
We have been ransomed – and animals have been sacrificed – to gun extremists, most of whom (we are assured) are law-abiding, rational and/or competent. Until suddenly they aren’t, which happens over 30,000 times a year.
The object of hunting is to shoot living creatures to death, yet we ignore its insidious influence on our culture of guns and gun violence. Consider this: When children kill animals for pleasure, psychologists worry it may signal an anti-social personality disorder or a precursor of abusive or violent behavior in adulthood. When grown-ups kill animals for entertainment, it’s called a “manly American tradition.”
If wise parents shield youngsters from violent video games, what do they say about the beautiful lifeless creature in the back of Dad’s pick-up? The head over the fireplace? How to explain the disturbing rush of pride Dad feels having shot them to death?
In 2013, no parent or teacher should have to try. With markets full of agricultural meat, wildlife is no longer needed for food. They are not “game,” but fellow beings, as critical to life on the planet as we. Henry Beston, in “The Outermost House,” captured this well:
“The animal shall not be measured by man. In a world older and more complete than ours, they move finished and complete, gifted with extension of the senses we have lost or never attained, living by voices we shall never hear. They are not brethren; they are not underlings; they are other nations, caught with ourselves in the net of life and time, fellow prisoners of the splendor and travail of the earth.”
If we can’t quit shooting them to death for sport, what hope is there we will stop shooting each other? Each wild creature shot by hunters shames our species as ruthless predators, killing not for survival or defense but for thrills. What other creatures do such a thing?
The Constitution indeed guarantees a right to “keep and bear” arms but, interestingly, not a right to use them. Like murder, hunting can be banned, and public and private land is frequently posted to prohibit it. It is time to post the whole country.
• • •
Bob Edwards is a resident of Sonoma.
Please note: Your full name will be published with your comment.
Bob...I don't know where to start with this one. I will
say you sitting in the camp of a very fringe minority.
Even in the Democratic Party if in fact you are a Democrat??
From reading your letter I draw the conclusion that it's
not really about the killing of animals with you. Your
problem is with the use of a firearm in taking the animal.
How do you feel about Archery and hunting? What about the use
of a sling shot in hunting small game?
I reject your notion that it is law abiding hunters that
end up doing evil things such as what happened at Columbine
or Sandy Hook. None of the people who did these things
were hunters. You are right about what psychologists have
concluded about children killing animals for pleasure. The
problem is you can't see the difference bewteen a kid just
going out and shooting everything in sight...in anger..or
a kid hunting during a season...with a license...and only
taking what the law allows. You are wrong in that you think
psychologists are lumping these two separate actions together.
You are wrong in saying that wildlife is not longer needed
for food. Many people in poverty in this country rely on wild
game and fish for food. Indians on reservations, people in
the Ozark and Appalachian mountain ranges come to mind. Fish are living creatures as well. Are you also proposing banning fishing
as well? Most of what use say needs no response and is silly
and laughable. For instance...your claim that the 2nd Amnd
guarantees the right to "keep and bear" arms not not a right
to USE them. The right to USE them Bob is IMPLIED in the 2nd
Amnd and you know it!!
(Sorry, should have proff read my post. let's try this again
Wayne)
Bob...I don't know where to start with this one. I will
say your sitting in the camp of a very fringe minority
in what you think. Even many Democrats don't think as you
do.
From reading your letter I draw the conclusion that it's
not really about the killing of animals with you. Your
problem is with the use of a firearm in taking the animal.
How do you feel about Archery and hunting? What about the use
of a sling shot in hunting small game?
I reject your notion that it is law abiding hunters that
end up doing evil things such as what happened at Columbine
or Sandy Hook. None of the people who did these things
were avid hunters. You are right about what psychologists have
concluded about children killing animals for pleasure. The
problem is you don't distinqiush the difference bewteen a kid just
going out and shooting everything in sight...in anger...or
a kid hunting during a season...with a license...and only
taking what the law allows. You are wrong in thinking that
psychologists have lumped these two separate actions together.
They have not and their is a difference. As they say, "Nice
try but no cigar".
You are wrong in saying that wildlife is no longer needed
for food. Many people in poverty in this country rely on wild
game and fish for food. Indians on reservations, people in
the Ozark and Appalachian mountain ranges come to mind. Fish are living creatures as well. Are you also proposing banning fishing
as well? Most of what use say needs no response and is silly
and laughable. For instance...your claim that the 2nd Amnd
guarantees the right to "keep and bear" arms but NOT the
right to use them. That is silling in that, the right to "use"
them is IMPLIED in the right to "keep and bear" and you very
well know that is the case.
"The right to USE them Bob is IMPLIED in the 2nd
Amnd and you know it!!"
Wayne -
In law school, I learned that the 2nd Amendment is more complicated than you've apparently been led to believe.
Not to belabor the point (and without intending to offer or provide you with legal advice), but our elected government can decide what uses of "arms" are lawful or unlawful (e.g., carrying weapons on a plane or without a permit). Guns can be kept and used for "lawful" purposes (e.g., self-defense in the home), as the Supreme Court noted in District of Columbia vs. Heller, 544 US 570 (2007). Google it & read it. Government can also ban guns or the use of them in a variety of other situations, e.g., in schools (see the same case).
Which is why government - and private landowners - can decide to ban hunting on lands they control (e.g. it's illegal to carry a gun - "bear arms" -- or to hunt in Yosemite National Park, as a few poachers recently learned). You may be surprised to learn that many other "uses" of firearms can be and are lawfully restricted or banned (e.g., target practice in the middle of the Plaza), without infringing the 2nd amendment right to "keep and bear arms."
This is why I wrote that that 2nd amendment guarantees a right to "keep and bear" arms, but not a right to use them. I hope this helps.
Bob..I understand and agree with what your saying. My
2nd Amnd right to "bear arms" cannot infringe on
the Constitutional rights of others. I cannot trespass
and hunt on property that does not belong to me. My
right to "bear arms" is subject to laws that have been
passed regarding firearms. My right to "bear arms" does
not mean I can take game any time I want to. Fish and Game
laws dictate when I can do that. My point to you is this.
Because the 2nd Amnd does not say I have the right to defend
myself..a loved one...or property in some cases...does
not mean that it is NOT inferred in the "right to keep
and bear" arms. I think it is even though it is not
directly stated. Not sure if I made this clear enough???
What you said in your Valley Forum letter and what your
response to me are a little different. Your Valley Forum
letter wants to take away my "private property" rights
(the right to hunt on my own property) which is what you
are asking for in the whole content of your letter.
Wayne -
I'm sorry if my reply to your response seemed inconsistent with what I wrote in the Valley Forum. That may be because I was responding to your comments, which seemed to have largely missed the point of mine. You are correct, however, in saying that I urge a total ban on hunting, even on your private property. In that regard, you may want to consult your attorney about the extent of your "private property rights" vs. the government's power to regulate, restrict or ban the killing of wildlife (hunting), even on your own property.
Bob..Don't need to contact an attorney becasue the Ca. Dept.
of Fish & Game has already regulations in place. This whether
I am on private or public land.
Bob, should the changes you and others advocate be made by executive orders or should they be made by the legislative process of our elected representatives?