|
Post by Decatur on Jan 30, 2010 20:04:28 GMT -5
Do any poachers ever get severly punished?
|
|
|
Post by mrfixit on Jan 30, 2010 20:24:03 GMT -5
I'll have to admit that I don't think this guy should be allowed to keep any guns IF convicted of this latest round of offenses. I think he's shown an obvious disregard for what we would consider to be laws that should not and have no need to be broke. That being said, I also would never give up my 2nd amendment rights for what is considered a misdmeanor BUT there is a very big difference between an occasional speeding/parking ticket and illegally taking 34 deer AFTER already having a previous conviction!!! This guy sounds like a real dirt bag that I sure wouldn't want as neighbor that had guns in his possession. I agree the guy's a real dirt bag and they should throw the book at him but to deny someone's Constitutional rights is pretty serious business and shouldn't be taken lightly. It's a very steep and slippery slope and very easy not to be able to get it stopped once we let it go any further than what it already has.
|
|
magnum500
Full Member
A man is built by trial... not comfort.
Posts: 78
|
Post by magnum500 on Jan 30, 2010 21:35:38 GMT -5
He obviously didn't learn his lesson the first time, and should spend time in the grey bar hotel, but he won't, they never do. Yep; he should but you're probably right he won't. I agree with drs too... no one ever really does. Everyone wants harsher punnishment for such people. However, as I've seen, if they do receive such punnishment, people then start to complain that whatever the punnishment is, it's too much. (it's usually on the other end of the argument spectrum though) Still, I agree... this guy is a real -fill in the blank-.
|
|
|
Post by drs on Jan 31, 2010 10:10:34 GMT -5
With all dues respect drs, I don't understand what you are saying. You're talking in circles. First you want to take away this individual's right to own a gun using the GCA of 1968 even though his crimes, as bad as they are, are not felonies. A lot of gun grabbers would love to see it that if someone got a parking or speeding ticket the government would take away their rightd to guns. Don't fall into that trap. IMO - I think ONLY violent felons should lose that right. Then a few posts later you ask for repeal of the same laws that you want to use to take away guns. ? ? ? ? ? ? Sorry, that just doesn't make any sense to me or am I reading you wrong? Yes, I know what I am posting here on this issue. The fact remains that this "Poacher" robbed game animals form the People of Ky. To me this is the same as robbing a store or a bank. Do you want this criminal to own guns?? The GCA of 1968 made it illegal for criminals to own firearms but they are still getting them SO the '68 GCA is ineffective and should be repealed. I was NEVER for any gun law that restricted law abiding citizens from owning a firearm. To me these Gun laws starting with the '68 GCA are just liberal "Feel Good" laws that don't work. They have no TEETH! Also Speeding in a car & receiving a ticket shouldn't take away your gun ownership rights.
|
|
|
Post by mrfixit on Jan 31, 2010 13:22:03 GMT -5
With all due respect there is nothing in the Second Amendment that refers to "law abiding citizens". Taking someone's Constitutional rights away is pretty darn serious business. By your estimation we could also take someone's freedom of speech for breaking a law or the freedom of the press for printing something we didn't like. That being said the thought of some violent offenders owning firearms scares me to no end but I'm more scared of people like you that take something so valuable and precious and give it away because you don't agree with something or wish to take it away from someone before you even know all the facts.
|
|
|
Post by mrfixit on Jan 31, 2010 13:34:01 GMT -5
Here is a refresher in case you forgot exactly what the Second Amendment states:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
I don't see anything in there about "law abiding people" or "law abiding citizens". I am a member of the NRA but they have just about rewrote the Second amendment by using that term "law abiding citizens" and in some ways they are doing more harm than good.
|
|
|
Post by drs on Jan 31, 2010 14:04:00 GMT -5
Here is a refresher in case you forgot exactly what the Second Amendment states: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. I don't see anything in there about "law abiding people" or "law abiding citizens". I am a member of the NRA but they have just about rewrote the Second amendment by using that term "law abiding citizens" and in some ways they are doing more harm than good. I agree with the Second Amendment, but it doesn't give anyone the right to commit a crime.
|
|
|
Post by racktracker on Jan 31, 2010 14:38:49 GMT -5
With all dues respect drs, I don't understand what you are saying. You're talking in circles. First you want to take away this individual's right to own a gun using the GCA of 1968 even though his crimes, as bad as they are, are not felonies. A lot of gun grabbers would love to see it that if someone got a parking or speeding ticket the government would take away their rightd to guns. Don't fall into that trap. IMO - I think ONLY violent felons should lose that right. Then a few posts later you ask for repeal of the same laws that you want to use to take away guns. ? ? ? ? ? ? Sorry, that just doesn't make any sense to me or am I reading you wrong? Yes, I know what I am posting here on this issue.
Then you are about the only one.
The fact remains that this "Poacher" robbed game animals form the People of Ky. To me this is the same as robbing a store or a bank.
Noooo.. Robbing a store or a bank puts people lives in danger. Poaching our game does not. That is why robbing stores or banks is a felony and poaching game isn't. It is felonies where the government can say no more guns, not misdemeanors. You DO understand the difference in felony and misdemeanor don't you?[ /b]
Do you want this criminal to own guns??
As long as the crimes he committed are not felonies he has just as much right to own guns and you and I.
The GCA of 1968 made it illegal for criminals to own firearms but they are still getting them SO the '68 GCA is ineffective and should be repealed.
No, it dont. It says that FELONIES are the only thing that can keep a person from possessing a gun. NOTHING on misdemeanors.
I was NEVER for any gun law that restricted law abiding citizens from owning a firearm.
BUT - You want to take away a man/woman's right to own guns because they commit a misdemeanor crime. Where does that slippery slope end? Where DRS says it does? Where is your line in the sand on who can and who can't posssess a gun?
To me these Gun laws starting with the '68 GCA are just liberal "Feel Good" laws that don't work. They have no TEETH!
Sounds like you are for some that do have TEETH? If someone commits a misdemeanor crime then you want to yank away his/her right to own a gun.
Also Speeding in a car & receiving a ticket shouldn't take away your gun ownership rights.
No kidding. But, in your opinion, what level of crime should it be that the government can take away person's right to own a gun? Right now it is a felony conviction that is the trigger....
|
|
|
Post by racktracker on Jan 31, 2010 14:47:28 GMT -5
Here is a refresher in case you forgot exactly what the Second Amendment states: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. I don't see anything in there about "law abiding people" or "law abiding citizens". I am a member of the NRA but they have just about rewrote the Second amendment by using that term "law abiding citizens" and in some ways they are doing more harm than good. I agree with the Second Amendment, but it doesn't give anyone the right to commit a crime. No, it doesn't. It also does not give the government the right to take guns away, does it? Even for the misdemeanor act of poaching. How can you "agree with the Second Amendment" and want to take away a person's guns rights if they commit a crime that the law says does not meet the threshhold for doing that? No doubt the guy is pond scum, but until Kentucky changes it's laws to make poaching a felony he has just as much right to own a gun as you and I. I cant believe this is not soaking in yet.
|
|
|
Post by mrfixit on Jan 31, 2010 14:49:29 GMT -5
Nobody is saying that it does. What I'm saying is your pretty loose with taking someone's God given and reinforced by the Constitution personal rights. Then when you are called on it you start spewing a Gun Control Act as proof your right. All I'm saying is taking someone's God given right away is pretty serious business and isn't to be taken lightly no matter how emotional the issue is. I don't think there is any doubt the guy done something very wrong and broke the law but that doesn't mean he won't change or he won't learn his lesson. His crime wasn't up close and personally against another person and I'm just not ready to give up more of a Constitutional right over what he done. We give up a little here and a little there then the next thing you know we ain't got nothing to pass along to our grandchildren because we squandered it over trivial matters. I think Ben Franklin summed it up nicely:
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Ben Franklin
|
|
|
Post by drs on Jan 31, 2010 15:31:50 GMT -5
I think this thread, on the Poacher, has pretty much ran it's course. So lets move on to another topic.....OKAY?
|
|
|
Post by greghopper on Jan 31, 2010 15:39:17 GMT -5
I agree with the Second Amendment, but it doesn't give anyone the right to commit a crime. No, it doesn't. It also does not give the government the right to take guns away, does it? Even for the misdemeanor act of poaching. How can you "agree with the Second Amendment" and want to take away a person's guns rights if they commit a crime that the law says does not meet the threshhold for doing that? No doubt the guy is pond scum, but until Kentucky changes it's laws to make poaching a felony he has just as much right to own a gun as you and I. I cant believe this is not soaking in yet.AMEN..+!
|
|
|
Post by Sasquatch on Jan 31, 2010 17:10:15 GMT -5
34 deer heads. I'm assuming, since he kept the heads, that's 34 bucks. That's one poacher, folks. This kind of thing is why I keep saying that we will never see as many bucks--or even half as many bucks---as we do does. All we can do is be vigilant.
|
|
|
Post by lugnutz on Jan 31, 2010 20:36:28 GMT -5
Taking a mans guns away, imo, is a bit steep. Once again, if this person is convicted, put their name in ink, and on a website, for all to see. Embarrassment is a very effective tool. And takes none of your constitutional rights away.
This Same A-hole, pays his "minor" fees, gets slapped on the wrist with a misdemeanor(just like a speeding ticket) and moves on with his business. He moves two counties over and does it all over again. Its already obvious that taking his hunting privileges away will do nothing to slow him of taking animals illegally.
|
|
|
Post by vectrix on Feb 1, 2010 14:55:47 GMT -5
Loss of hunting priveleges for life and confiscation of the weapons used to commit the crimes as well as the vehicle used and the fines should be enough. Anything short and he will probably be out doing the same thing again.
|
|
|
Post by Decatur on Feb 1, 2010 15:50:01 GMT -5
I've really never understood the loss of hunting privileges thing. They obviously don't care about game laws anyways! It's in the same vein as "If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns" thing. Crooks don't care about gun laws either.
|
|
|
Post by raporter on Feb 1, 2010 16:31:13 GMT -5
I've really never understood the loss of hunting privileges thing. They obviously don't care about game laws anyways! It's in the same vein as "If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns" thing. Crooks don't care about gun laws either. Exactly!
|
|
|
Post by lugnutz on Feb 1, 2010 19:17:36 GMT -5
+2
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 2, 2010 15:27:08 GMT -5
hold on people. quit blaming it on being the guns fault it had nothing to do with it. the individual behind the stock that pulled the trigger did. this man needs to be locked up and have the key thrown away. either that or ahve someone point a spotlight on him and shoot him the same way he did the 34 deer.
|
|
|
Post by INDeerhunter on Feb 3, 2010 13:34:56 GMT -5
I got one to throw in the mix for ya !!!! I WAS CONVICTED OF A FELONY ABOUT 10 YRS AGO, for a non violent crime which w/o gettin into too many details, I met a woman in a bar (yes in a bar) later after havin a relationship w/ her for months found out she was in fact 16 yrs old. I was charged w/ statueitory rape, which was later changed to battery w/ intent a class d felony. I LOST MY 2nd Amendment rights for for than 8 yrs !!!! SINCE THEN I HAVE HAD MY CONVICTIONS OVERTURNED IN SUPERIOR COURT TO MISDEMEANERS, AND CAN FINALLY OWN A FIREARM AGAIN> YET I CAN NOT HAVE A CONCEALED CARRY PERMIT> SO ALL OF U THAT THINK THE GUY SHOULD LOSE HIS GUNS TELL ME THIS DO U ALSO THINK THAT I SHOULD OF LOST MINE ? AND WHAT DO U THINK ABOUT THE FACT I STILL CANNOT CARRY A CONCEALED WEAPON> I AM NOT A VIOLENT PERSON OR HABITUAL CRIMINAL YET BECUZ I WAS LABELED A FELON I LOST MY AMENDMENT RIGHTS ! Our government system is screwed up enough IMO and we shouldnt just throw away the key on everyone that made a mistake, I had no prior record for any crime and have never been in trouble w/ the law since that date, not even a speeding ticket, yet ppl assume that I am a criminal and a violent person becuz at one time when I was 21 yrs old I made a mistake which could of been avoided if I wouldnt have been lied to in the first place and the Bar I attended that night would have carded its patrons ! SO U TELL ME WHAT U THINK ABOUT PPL LOSING THEIR AMENDMENTS RIGHTS< CUZ IMO NO ONE SHOULD LOSE THEM UNLESS THEY COMMITTED A VIOLENT CRIME AND USED A FIREARM IN THAT CRIME ! TO THROW EVER SINGLE PERSON THAT MAKES A MISTAKE IN JAIL OR TAKE THEIR RIGHTS AWAY DOES NOTHIN FOR THE PPL THAT ACTUALLY CHANGE THEIR LIFE> CRIMINALS THAT CONTINUIOUSLY DO ILLEGAL THINGS SHOULD BE PUNISHED BUT THOSE THAT CHANGE ANG REHABILITATE THEMSELVES TO BECOME LAW ABIDING CITIZENS SHOULD NOT HAVE TO SUFFER FOR THE REST OF THEIR LIVES FOR MISTAKES THEY MAY HAVE ONCE MADE !!! THose ppl that are lifetime criminals dont care about gun laws or amendment rights they will still get their hands on firearms and the guy that killed 34 deer whether he loses his gun privleges and hunting privleges will still (more than likely) poach animals and have a firearm. I have fought for yrs in the court system to change my convictions into misdemeaners and have been pursuein expungement of those same convictions. I take full responsibility for sleepin w/ the underage girl now becuz I didnt take the time to get to know more about her b4 I had intimate relations w/ her, but even with that said it would have never happened if she hadnt lied to me and been in that bar, I served months in jail, had 200 hours of community service, had a yr and a half probation,paid numerous fines and court costs, spent 26 weeeks in a counseling enviroment for it, and lost not one but two amendment rights. I not only lost the right to bear arms but lost my 4th amendment right. THe police can come to my home at any time w/ no reason at all and search my premises, all becuz I was labeled a FELON !!!! SO WHAT DO U THINK IS IT RIGHT OR WRONG ? IM CURIOUS TO KNOW EXACTLY HOW SOME OF U THINK ABOUT THE WHOLE MATTER. dont hold back either u wont upset me no matter what ur opinion but I do want to know it lmao
|
|