And I've been fairly vocal on this matter -however - they still need a background check.

And for some it's not even subsistence. Before 'organic' meats - most of my childhood we had wild game and fish whenever we possibly could. Stuff my dad and uncle brought home. It was never for 'sport'. And in the 1980's Venison at Wegmans was an extremely expensive cut of meat when they had it all.

My dad would have . . . my brother WOULD submit to a background check to be able to hold onto his rifles.

It's much safer to trap them.

My bro-in-law has a safe full of guns and he and his youngest son go hunting quite a bit (and they are not poor).

They eat what they kill and have, at times, donated some of that food to shelters or poor families at their old church (not sure about the new one they go to).

It saves them money.

My old HS friend is a duck hunting guide (geese/duck/fowl in general) and he has a freezer full of food that was not farm/factory raised. He cooks awesome gourmet meals (I don't generally like duck but he cooks it well). He is not dependent on others for much of his food for himself and his family.

He lives in the city but hunts various places (and rents land for his guided hunts all over Ohio and Montana). He bags enough in one hunt to feed his family for weeks (he usually hunts with his kids so bag limit goes up 3-10 per person/day depending on the type of fowl).

Hunting allows people to be more independent.

I don't hunt but like to fish, and I can get enough white bass, crappie, pan fish in general, to feed me for weeks in one trip. $20/yr plus bait (if I am not using lures) can save me a ton of money.

I do not hunt but have had many fine meals at friends' homes around venison or wild turkey. I have no problem with this. Many around here depend on it.

Should women have to demonstrate a 'need' for reproductive care? A 'means test' to demonstrate that they don't have enough money to support another child and therefore qualify for birth control or even a D&C should they become pregnant?

Any more false equivalencies you'd care to insult our intelligence with?

'Means testing' for rights.. should only those who own their own homes (and therefore pay property taxes) be able to vote?

Some sick shit going round DU these days.

But please, do go on.

If you actually read Roe, you'd understand the right protected in that decision, and how it applies to all people, regardless of gender.

The right to reproductive choices is just one protected expression of the right, and the one most imperiled at the time of the decision.

Just as hunting is a 'traditionally lawful purpose' that is protected by the right to keep and bear arms.

Really?

Tell me more. I'm learning so much today!

The man, of course, was a Supreme Court justice trying to overthrow RvW.

.. compelling interest by the government.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=410&invol=113

You can go find somebody to your liking. There's millions of pages on the internet, go looking.

I don't see hunters as a problem (except for the dumbasses who accidently shoot themselves and others), but I also don't see why they should be exempt from gun control legislation.

Let them be licensed and registered along with everybody else.

9th grade debating tactics here?

It's insanely annoying

duh...

I don't need a driver's license, or insurance, or even be a certain age to drive on private property.

duh indeed.

....is what passes for a compelling argument, according to gun militants. Suits me.....

Maybe you can answer the question.. what right is predicated on 'need'?

a .22LR is lethal up to 1.5 miles.

just let anybody hunt ducks with one?

really, if these oppressed masses have enough of their own land to hunt on, then they could just do it for fun.

a cow and 12 chickens and a garden is plenty- how did people survive for THOUSANDS of years without the PRECIOUS GUNZ!?!?!?

you don't need to shoot the eggs out of a chicken- also, you can raise them for eating in about 6-8 weeks, its actually kind of scary how fast they grow..IN FACT, one kind, if you feed it to much, it gets too fat to walk.

so, in conclusion, you seem to be confused about guns, driving, hunting, farming, and government.

and you seem a bit paranoid.

just sayin'...

What right is predicated on need? We've already established that driving on public roads does not qualify since it isn't a right.

mr. internet lawyer wanna-be!

so you've proved my point, you don't understand what your fingers are typing!

Now, care to answer the question?

List of human rights

Not everyone agrees on what the basic human rights are. Here is a list of some of the most recognized ones:

Right to privacy
Right to live, exist
Right to have a family
To own property
Free Speech
Safety from violence
Equality of both males and females; women's rights
Fair trial
To be innocent until proven guilty
To be a citizen of a country
To be recognized as a person
The right to express his or her sexual orientation
To vote
To seek asylum if a country treats you badly
To think freely
To believe and practice the religion a person wants
To peacefully protest (speak against) a government or group
Health care (medical care)
Education
To communicate through a language
Not be forced into marriage
The right to love
The right to work
The right to express oneself

Hint: No, you don't.

these are things you 'need' to do to be a human being.

try it sometime!

blerp. furtz. gunzgunzgunz.

Thanks for agreeing with me.

so, no.

i repeat, you make NO sense.

you don't even know the meanings of words you are typing,

this is what i agree with.

You could have saved yourself about 20 replies had you read closer.

its been real!

pointless!

you wanna talk about the right to not get shot by a stray bullet?

ever heard of a hunting accident? or license?

property rights?

there's a guy that hunts in my backyard that takes his limit everyday and gives it food banks.

does that register in your brain at all?

do you have a general number of how many of these 'downtrodden' there are that must shoot meat to eat?

Care to actually answer?

care to ask a non-meaningless question?

Is there a means test to vote? Do you have to explain why you 'need' to practice religion?

Of course, not.

Voting is a right. Therefore no means testing is required.

the gov. helps people vote. (are the lines too long? do you need a ride?)

at least democrats do, so, again, what do you mean?

connect the dots between shooting a hog and voting?

By the way, I put over a thousand miles on my wife's SUV in 2008 and then again this past summer and fall, shuttling abuelitas to their early voting locations in three counties.

What's YOUR OFA ID, so that we can check how many hours you logged?

unlike your tactic of ignoring everything i type.

what's your damage? can't you stay on topic for 1 post at least?

who's this 'we'? sounds kinda...groupthinky.

But it all comes back to the same thing, time after time: he's got nuttin' but pro-NRA talking points and memes.

at least it takes about at much attention as making a pot of coffee.

'there's something happening here, and what it is IS PERFECTLY F'IN CLEAR!!"

to paraphrase Buffalo Springfield...

the 2nd amendment has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with a citizens right to own some sort of gun.

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article is about a famous phrase.

"Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness" is a well-known phrase in the United States Declaration of Independence. The phrase is meant to exemplify the "unalienable rights" with which all human beings are endowed for the protection of which they institute governments.[1]

there's your fucking right to own a gun, the 2nd is actually GUN CONTROL.

hope your shit doesn't blow up.

also, by 'predicate', do you mean "assert and affirm" OR "connote or imply"?

words do have certain meanings, to those who read them.

Name one right that requires you to demonstrate need before exercising it.

Do you have to explain why you need to write a letter to your congress? Or why you need to picket the White House?

No.

the timeless words of Mr. Joe Strummer-

Back in the garage with my bullshit detector
Carbon monoxide making sure it's effective
People ringing up making offers for my life
But I just wanna stay in the garage all night

We're a garage band
We come from garageland

Meanwhile things are hotting up in the West End alright
Contracts in the offices, groups in the night
My bummin' slummin' friends have all got new boots
An' someone just asked me if the group would wear suits

I don't wanna hear about what the rich are doing
I don't wanna go to where the rich are going
They think they're so clever, they think they're so right
But the truth is only known by guttersnipes

There's twenty-two singers! But one microphone
Back in the garage
There's five guitar players! But one guitar
Back in the garage
Complaints! Complaints! Wot an old bag
Back in the garage
All night

From the OP:

Robb suggested a means test, and having to justify owning a firearm:

means, as in, do you need help, not 'we are watching you. you are on the master list.'

also OP-
There's this other NRA meme running around, that proponents of gun control measures don't know or care about the poor, some of whom hunt to put food on the table.

now there's a liberal meme that says
'NRA shills don't know or care about the poor, or listen to farmers who know what actually goes on in reality'

thanks, for that!

We used food stamps off and on all through my childhood, and we hunted for game to eat and sell. My family didn't really get out of borderline poverty until my sister and I were out of college and could send some money back home.

or other non-licensed 'animals'?

i mean really, WHAT IS YOUR POINT!!?!?!?

look at the part below about Utah and contemplate a bunch of yahoos with guns on the 1st day of duck seasom for 5 seconds, plz.

United States

In the United States, Regulation of hunting is primarily performed by the state law; additional regulations are imposed through United States (Federal) environmental law regarding migratory birds (such as ducks and geese) and endangered species.

Like many licenses, a hunting license is considered a privilege granted by the government, rather than a constitutional right under the Second Amendment.[10][11]

As a general rule, unprotected pest species are not subject to a hunting license. Vermin may be hunted without a license, or may even be the subject of a bounty paid to the hunter. .[12]

***

Sorry but California was not the first nor the oldest state issuing a Hunting Licence.

The State of Utah in 1901 passed the following law in their State legislature.This beat California by 2 years..

"Any bona fide male citizen of the State of Utah over the age of fourteen yers of age and making payment of $1 to any justice of the peace of the county in which he resides, the county commissioner,or a deputy warden, or any other person whom shall be duly authorized shall be entitled from the officer to whom such payment is made, a hunting and fishing license. Said license shall permit such person to pursue,hunt and kill any of the game animals, or those mentioned in this title during the time when it shall be lawful to kill same, in any counties of this state, subject to the limitations as to the number of animals or birds provided, and to catch fish with hook and line according to the provisions of this statute.

All "FEMALE" persons, residents of the state of Utah, may take game animals under the provisions of this title, WITHOUT procuring a license,as provided by this title.


Utah was also the first state to issue a "TAG" that was to be worn on the outside of clothes while hunting.... Whew..
Source(s):
Internet Search
Gunsmith,Gun Shop Owner-Dealer
Firearms Appraiser/Collector/NRA Life Member
35 Years Hunting and Firearms Experience

.. and ground deer with cheap beef to make it last the winter. We sold fox, deer, and raccoon hides to a local tanner / taxidermist who worked out of his house. My grandfather had 45 acres of steep mountains in West Virginia, which limited how much flat land there was to farm. By the time I came along, there were no horses, pigs, or cows, as my grandfather really wasn't in shape to manage them. In the summer, we'd drive to a lake and fill up ice chests with fish (blue gill, crappie, bass, an occasional catfish or trout), clean then and freeze them. Around labor day, we'd drive to my uncle's house in Tennessee, since he had large fields, to go dove hunting- not so much subsistence as a chance to pig out cheaply (a rare occurrence in those days).

About the only thing we didn't catch, eat, or skin (that was decent size) was possums.

I didn't get a hunting license until I was 20'ish, as it wasn't required on private property, only when hunting on public lands. I had a fishing license at 16 in order to fish trout stocked streams.

.. to a model 97 12ga shotgun (dove) or a Remington 740 in 30-06 (deer).

Number of rounds varied by season and game. 15 in the 290, 3 in the '97 (while dove hunting), 10 in the 740.

The fact that you're still stuck on this 'demonstrate' crap is kinda silly. You've already admitted that you don't have to demonstrate need to exercise a right.

I draw the line where it is right now, thanks. Arbitrary limits on magazine size or cosmetic features is stupid.

what are you, just adding them all up? that'd be 24, by my count, or 28 by yours.

some people (state of NY) like a 7 round limit.

i'd go with 8, myself.

actually, myself, i'd keep them in my pocket and put them in 1 at a time.

safer, get it?

you seem to be the one making things arbitrary, don't cha now?

Hunting regulation is not the same as legality to possess. When the '97 came out of the field, the plug came out and it was back to 6+1 (short shells, not the 3" ones.)

grab a free box with a bottle of Jack!

woo hoo!

you can't possibly come up with a reason a civilian would need more rounds than a hunter, so don't bother.

are muggers more dangerous than bears, for instance? where's that 'line' you suposedly drew?

NY bear law:
It is unlawful to hunt big game with:

A firearm or bow aided by any artificial light or a laser that projects a beam toward the target.
An autoloading firearm with a capacity of more than 6 shells (one which requires that the trigger be pulled separately for each shot), except an autoloading pistol with a barrel length of less than 8 inches.

KY-
LEGAL BEAR EQUIPMENT

• A modern rifle of .270 caliber or larger, but firearms may NOT be able to hold more than 11 rounds (10 in the magazine and one in the chamber), may NOT be fully automatic (capable of firing more than

one round with one trigger pull), and may NOT be used with full metal jacketed or tracer ammunition.

Why are you basing your argument about magazine capacity on hunting? Where is hunting mentioned in the second amendment?

where are magazines mentioned in the 2nd?

if there are laws to protect animals, shouldn't there be the same for people?

the Sierra Club has a lot more $$ than the Bradys, i'll give you that.

You know who's given much more money than the Sierra Club?

Hunters, via the Pittman-Robertson act- they've generated over two BILLION dollars.

Beginning in the 1880s, the new bolt action rifle began to gain favor with militaries, and these were often equipped with tubular magazines. The Mauser Model 1871, originally a single shot action, added a tubular magazine in its 1884 update, and the Jarmann M1884, adopted the same year, also used one. James Paris Lee patented a box magazine, which held rounds stacked vertically, in 1879 and 1882, which was first adopted by Austria in the form of an 11mm, straight-pull bolt action rifle of Mannlicher design in 1886; along with this rifle came the cartridge clip, which held 5 rounds ready to load into the magazine.[8][9]

any real hunter with any common sense would tell you an ar-15 is overkill for hunting.

so ak-47s are good too? Uzis? where's that LINE AGAIN?

great! hunters have paid for all of THEIR sensible gun laws, citizens should, and are going to, too.

other calibers on the same lower, are perfect for deer or elk.







AK's are not as accurate as an AR for hunting, at more than 100 yards. If you were in a brushy / hilly area with short range shots (like above a deer trail on the side of a mountain) it would work fine.

An uzi isn't accurate further than you can throw it, so would make a poor choice for handgun hunting.

But all this is beside the point. Where is hunting mentioned in the second amendment? Why do you think what's appropriate for hunting should have any bearing on possession? As if that's the only valid use for a gun??

If you're hunting for pure economics, it is very difficult to compete with $2.00/lb hamburger or $0.50/lb beans.

Sport hunters (via license) finance most wildlife conservation projects.

And for that you can get a lot of venison. Now the cost of the gun, that's another story, but maybe it was handed down from the parents' generation or something.

See I'd be opposed to that cost because I'm used to people who do actually hunt to fill a freezer with meat for the year.

Our out-of-state license is really expensive though, like around $140 I think. So I guess people from other states fund our program, though I guess if you can afford to take a trip and stay in a hotel or something to hunt, it's more likely to be for sport than to feed your family.

Which dovetails into the discussion about how our tax system is so completely hosed.

I think people in WA just don't like hunting or something.

I'd buy a cheap $100 .22LR for small game (squirrel, rabbit, groundhogs, etc).

I'd then buy one of these for deer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosin-Nagant

The local Fleet Farm Supply usually carries them for less than $100.

If rifles aren't allowed for hunting in your area, a cheap single-shot shotgun from NEF or Rossi can be had for $100 as well, and would allow you to shoot either slugs for deer, or birdshot for bird hunting.

Feed system 5-round non-detachable magazine, loaded individually or with five-round stripper clips.

isn't the difficulty of hunting part of the fun?

I've seen comments from plenty of Native Americans that they couldn't make it without subsistence hunting. Specifically those living in remote villages where everthing is flow in.

http://www.ktuu.com/gotoak/ktuu-photo-gallery-arctic-food-prices-the-cost-of-living-in-barrow-alaska-20110629,0,6727209.photogallery

The typical Northern fawn, which includes "button bucks," weighs about 55 to 75 pounds field dressed, while a healthy doe fawn weighs 45 to 65 pounds field dressed. Southern fawns weigh less - sometimes less than 30 pounds field dressed.

Yearling bucks, which range from small spikes to basket-racked 10-pointers, typically weigh 105 to 125 pounds.

Northern does weigh 105 to 120 pounds field dressed

http://www.butcher-packer.com/index.php?main_page=document_general_info&products_id=331

Deer permit is $24. In zone C here (the largest) you can take 6 per year.

So roughly 600 lbs for about $25.

Cost of the gun is cheap as it is used year after year and you don't have to worry about factory raised beef (not to mention the environmental impact of transporting them, etc).

Add to this fowl season with bag limits of up to 10/day and you can save a ton of money over buying it and paying the overhead costs.

Usually you can get at least one permit for each type of weapon (long gun, handgun, muzzleloader, and bow).

Deer and bear are the premium animals. You're allowed very few. Crows, squirrels, racoons, and woodchucks are more likely. But even then, you're right about the money. It would probably be easier to earn a couple bucks doing something other than hunting and then buying food.

http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt?open=514&objID=576240&mode=2

exempt isn't the right word.

protected by, maybe?

if they are farmers and not gardeners, there's protection there too. farmers can shoot animals after their crops out of season.

farmers are also exempt from being drafted!

hasn't anybody thought of (seriously) vasectomies for the hogs?

trap, snip, release?

i hope they have dogs, too...

Because as far as I know, even the most extreme gun control measures proposed so far would have absolutely no impact on the guns used by most subsistence hunters. True subsistence hunters aren't dropping $5000 on a tricked-out rifle with the latest optics and a few crates of ammo.

Why would we need to discuss issuing subsistence-need permits for old bolt-action rifles and beat-up single-shot shotguns?

True subsistence hunters are a rare subset of hunters, most hunters I know are doing it for "fun".

In Alaska we have very remote villages were hunting game does provide food for survival but even that is a small portion compared to fish, whale, birds and other marine mammals.

but I prefer that what I eat is not factory farm raised. My husband bow hunts mostly but he does use his rifle for turkey. I like that the animal had a free roaming life with no hormones pumped into it's body and that it was dispatched with respect and quickly and humanely. (He is a great shot both with bow and rifle)

I'm not poor, and can easily afford to feed my family via traditional means (ie: grocery stores). But I also enjoy hunting, and have since childhood. I've never taken a "trophy" in my life, and I won't kill anything that my family isn't going to eat.
So, where do I fall on the spectrum? Do I qualify as a subsistence hunter, or just another gun nut?

from gardening to fishing to hunting.

Less reliance on corporations I see as a good thing myself.

who have may 'a legitimate need' to certain ones. Much more fair, and probably easier.

*Also includes LE.

... there's no gun I would trust them with. And if there's a gun I would trust them with, I don't see why they should have one model but not another.

that another group wouldn't simply because the 2nd group supposedly doesn't need it as much.

WITHOUT knowing anything else about the persons involved.

I agree with 'trust with one trust with another'; but I think the idea of limiting the type of arms in general is better to reduce access to all people...those you might trust, those you are just not so sure about, and those who have yet to involve themselves with that gun but might. Bans equal access in lieu of an arbitrary ban based on need. Seems more fair.

Conventional hunting weapons are not the problem.

to determine if you are allowed to eat. What could go wrong with that?

That seems fine with lots of safety restrictions.

*shrug*

Why is it that gun people can't stand to hear how other people feel about their guns? It's like they are just waking up to the fact that their love affair with weapons makes folks without their obsession uncomfortable and even, at times, horrified.

No one is talking about taking hunting rifles or shotguns or even reasonable defensive handguns for the home - revolvers, for instance - away from folks who are legally able to own them.

Good poll, highlighting a ridiculous NRA talking point.

It's how many people in Alaska stay alive.

Interesting paradigm shift here, Robb - From the object to the person. I wonder how many others have noticed it.

Grandpa isn't part of the problem, nor are his duck gun or his AR-15.

What about varmint hunting? It, in a way, furthers subsistance hunting- as well as helps eliminate pests around the homes/farms.
Some varmints are hurting the small game population(quail, squirrel, etc)- coyotes, bobcats, etc.
Others are tearing up the land- ferrel hogs/boars, groundhogs, prarie dogs, etc.
They can tear up your land and kill barn cats, chickens, etc

What about varmint hunting? It, in a way, furthers subsistance hunting- as well as helps eliminate pests around the homes/farms.
Some varmints are hurting the small game population(quail, squirrel, etc)- coyotes, bobcats, etc.
Others are tearing up the land- ferrel hogs/boars, groundhogs, prarie dogs, etc.
They can tear up your land and kill barn cats, chickens, etc

Not from you Robb.