View Single Post
Old 02-16-2007, 12:07 PM   #13
Senior Resident Curmudgeon
redhawk's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: In My Memories
Posts: 10,931
Originally Posted by coolrobc View Post
His evil deeds aside, do you think it's appropriate for someone who attempted to legislate against hunting and trapping, to be placed in charge of its regulation?
Hmm, do you think it's fair that someone who legislated for hunting and trapping to be placed in charge of it's regulation, when it's only proportionate to the overall picture.

Could someone expound on what he legislated against, exactly? Did he want to ban hunting and trapping? Did he want stiffer regulations against hunting and trapping? Was his proposed legislation against hunting and trapping in all of NY State, or was it targeted against specific areas?

What's the full picture? I'm asking because I don't know and I think tat if anyone is saying this guy should not be the DEC commissioner based on legislation he proposed, then those who are making the case against him should state it, along with some references to the specific proposal and not what might be posted on internet forums, especially those that are pro gun, pro hunting.

Here's part of the problem as I see it. There are gun advocates and hunters who consider me "anti-gun" and "anti- hunter". That's not true in any way. I have nothing against those who hunt for meat and in cases where herds need to be culled. I am opposed to high powered guns that kill from a half mile away and can go far enough to injure someone. I am also opposed to semi-automatic weapons for hunting. if you can't get close enough to shoot and can't bring it down with a lever or bolt action, they you don't have the skill use the firearm, as far as I'm concerned. And if anyone asks, yes I can get lose enough to an animal and yes I could bring it down with a single shot. I'm no stranger to firearms and was quite proficient with them. I am opposed to trophy hunting. It's like someone has a nice coat or pair of sneakers and I kill them to take them. I am opposed to hunters who advocate the killing of predators or the reintroduction of them to their natural habitat because they compete with hunters for their kill.

I also favor gun legislation and regulation as well as licensing. I don't think that anyone with a legitimate reason for carrying a firearm and without a criminal record will suffer. I also don't believe that there is a plot to take away all the guns from private citizens and that licensing is just the first step.

I have the utmost respect for firearms in the hands of people who know how to use them and are responsible.

So I am neither anti-gun nor anti-hunting, I happen to disagree on some of the issues, yet, in some perverse way, I represent a threat to some of those I disagree with.

So, I cannot accept the "This guy shouldn't", because in all too many instances, it's an attack campaign by parties who's interests are not backed 100% by the individual.

So, let's have all the FACTUAL information about the legislation being referred to. If you have a reason, you should have a basis. if you have a basis, with fact to back it up, then let's see it. if not, then don't expect support from me.
"If future generations are to remember us with gratitude rather than contempt, we must leave them more than the miracles of technology. We must leave them a glimpse of the world as it was in the beginning, not just after we got through with it." Lyndon B. Johnson
redhawk is offline