The Vermont State Constitution since it was written has a hunting and fishing right protection. Many other states have been adding them. The Federal Government was never meant to have all the powers it does when it was created.

It is not the non hunter that sportsman need to be looking out for it is the militant anti hunter animal rights activist that break all kinds of laws while trying to achieve their twisted agenda of hate against law abiding hard working taxpaying citizens of this country they are the ones spewing hate with their activities against sportsmen and women, sportsmen need to unite and be active in the political process amd find out what elected officials are supporting the anti hunting agenda and vote them out!!!
P.E.T.A. people eating tasty animals

QuoteOriginally posted by Mike Orton:
Arthur, you are an interesting individual....

I beleive you would be an interesting man to share a campfire with some evening, although admittedly I would need to visit your campfire rather than inviting you to mine.  You appear a bit radical in your thinking and I do not believe that your presence would add to the harmony in my camp.
   

I read that as "I do not agree with your views, and you should not have the right to express them". See, it's about how things are said, not what is said. Of course, if you truly believe that what I say is worth hearing, then why would you not invite me to your campfire? If all it takes to ruin the harmony of your camp is an idea you do not agree with, I pity those in your camp for their unwillingness to disagree with you.

You appear to not be open to new ideas, Mike. The tip-off was your use of the word "radical". Is it "radical" to ensure that your grand-children have a place to hike, to fish, to hunt -- to be able to enjoy the wilderness as you are allowed to do, whether they choose to hunt or not? If so, then I am a "radical".

cowboys and indians, who will live on the res. this time?  

QuoteOriginally posted by Artur:
 

QuoteOriginally posted by Mike Orton:
Arthur, you are an interesting individual....

I beleive you would be an interesting man to share a campfire with some evening, although admittedly I would need to visit your campfire rather than inviting you to mine.  You appear a bit radical in your thinking and I do not believe that your presence would add to the harmony in my camp.
     

I read that as "I do not agree with your views, and you should not have the right to express them".[/i] See, it's about how things are said, not what is said. Of course, if you truly believe that what I say is worth hearing, then why would you not invite me to your campfire? If all it takes to ruin the harmony of your camp is an idea you do not agree with, I pity those in your camp for their unwillingness to disagree with you.

You appear to not be open to new ideas, Mike. The tip-off was your use of the word "radical". Is it "radical" to ensure that your grand-children have a place to hike, to fish, to hunt -- to be able to enjoy the wilderness as you are allowed to do, whether they choose to hunt or not? If so, then I am a "radical". [/b]

Interesting, I don't see anywhere that Mike said you would not have the right to express your opinion.  Basically, what I understand Mike to have said was that WHEN you expressed your opinion you would not add to the harmony of his camp.
BIG DIFFERENCE.
I don't doubt that a visit from Mike or any of us who do not agree with your opinions would add to the harmony of your camp either.
Personally, you have every right to your opinion and the right to speak your mind.  HOWEVER, when I find your opinions distasteful or fundamentally opposed to my own beliefs, then I have the right to not listen or try to come to some compromise that will not totally tick each other off.
AS to whether your thinking is radical, that is up to the person you are speaking to.  You obviously do not think so... but just because someone else believes you might have radical beliefs is no reason to insult them...
I find it interesting that most liberals will not listen to anyone who has a differing belief from them.... in fact I have found that most hard core liberals will automatically decide that such a person does not have the brains to think for themselves and therefore must have the liberal theory thrust upon them until they understand... from whence comes my opinion that Liberals Aren't.

Arthur, I am willing to lay down money on the bet that, if a poll was taken based upon what you've already written on this thread the overwhelming vast majority of Trad Gangsters would conclude you as "Radical".  Your harsh commentary toward the conservative views of people whom I personally call as friends is outstanding.  You have admitted in one form or another to being both a terrorist and a radical. You have attempted to hi-jack this thread by making the issues your own.  There-in lies another component of your radical nature.

Regarding the issue of the term "Radical" that term is subjective and varies by definition.  Post your views upon the tree-hugger web blogs and you'd be a regular guy, with an invite to Hillarie's post primary celebration bash.   The followers of al Queda do not believe Osama to be radical.  Most Americans, even the misguided urban masses representative of your type of thinking, have a different opinion of OBL.      It's all about perspective....your postings on this conservative based Traditional Archery blog are radical to most readers.

Free speech is a guaranteed right through the Bill of Rights.  Posting here you are exercising that right.  While I do not agree with the message you spout I fairly well enjoy saddling you up and taking you for a spin around the mountain.  Nothing more fun than to light-up a flaming liberal and watch him spout.  In addition to your right to free speech you have the right to remain silent.  It's apparent you do not have the "ability" to remain silent.  There-in lies the beauty of it all.  

Arthur, In your last post directed toward me again you have raised another red-herring to divert from the predicate issue.  It's not about you...  It never has been about you.   It's not about you and I holding hands at the camp fire during the cuum-by-ahh harmony-song.  It's about PETA and their attempt to do bad things to good people.  It's not about your precious Sierra Club or GreenPeace or whatever membership cards you're carrying today in the old wallet.  It absolutely ain't about you Dude.  The thread is about notifying Trad Gagsters about the evil enemy organization called PETA and what they are presently doing to further their twisted agenda.   Keep your eye on the subject matter Arthur and I'll stay put in the saddle guiding you back toward the PETA issue.  Do you like Some-mores, I like cooking-em at your campfire.
 

You guys are really taking things a little too seriously.

In the end all you are really doing is arguing each other's views.

I am happy to see the different views. If you could only keep the personal attacks down...

Bravedeer,

Wellput.  It's time for me to take a tactical retreat from Arthur's campfire.    

QuoteOriginally posted by vermonster13:
You need to do some research on some of these groups Artur and see how much the things these folks do are impacting your hunting and fishing rights. If you believe that the buying of the lighthouses doesn't play into their agenda some way, you are being naive.

I hate to bring up a sore subject, but thought this quote from a local news article might enlighten some as to why PETA would be interested in buying these old lighthouses.

 

QuoteThe federal government is already offering West Bank Light and Old Orchard Light, Romer Shoal's sister lighthouses in the Lower Bay, for private preservation, as long as they are not used for profit and maintained as navigation aids. So far, only the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals has shown interest. PETA wants to use at least one of the lighthouses as a place to teach the public that fish feel pain and should not be caught and eaten.

I wouldn't expect anything less fyrfyter43. Thanks for doing some research.

I don't agree with everything the Sierra Club does, but I'm a member and so too are many other hunters.

I'm with you Reg. I think Backcountry Hunters and Anglers is the group walking the right ridgeline on this issue. Artur I think I understand your position and may agree with what I can decipher as your basic points. However, your delivery is off base.

I believe there needs to be much more coordination and cooperation between environmental and hunting rights groups rather than confrontation. This does not include single-issue nut jobs like PETA.

I Really Never Knew that Rumsfeld could Tap Dance around the Issues like Sammy Davis Jr.!!
  I HOPE WE ALL   Get OUT & VOTE  This  "Terrorist Attractant" OUT  of WHATEVER GOLDEN PARACHUTE They are Hiding Under!! Just "Frosts My Cookies!"    
   Send  PETA  over to Eagle Eye the Critters In  IRAQ , and Have a "Peaceful March" through Downtown Baghdad! I am Sure they will have a Warm Welcome "Brunch" for their Cases. Bwahahaha  

HUH!

Artur - come on guy! Mike said you would be an interesting man to share a campfire with. I too would agree. Although we may not share a lot of the same political beliefs it would still be interesting to say the least. As far as you getting on your soap box about Rush I would recommend you read the proposed Fairness Doctrine. If you didn't like what Mike said, when you "read into it" then you should be even more outraged at what this bill is attempting to pass.

Guys Artur decided he doesn't like the politics here and left the fire so to speak.

I just happened upon this post this morning, and have found it a fascinating read, and a wonderful exercise in free speech. I would like to weigh in on one point, regarding Artur's contention that there is no "Right" to hunt. The founders of this nation had an understanding that "Rights" as such were granted by GOD and could only be enumerated by code.  Conversely, power could only be granted to government via the will of the governed, ie. ratification etc.  

Glad Artur left, he was cramping my puny brain with his diatribe. He wrote quite a few words but after reading his posts several times, I could not figure out what point he was trying to make. It was if you said "PETA is bad" and his response was "Mickey Mouse has big feet". He seemed angry. About what I could not say. Couldn't make any sense out of it. I have a business partner who is a liberal. He argues the same way. Never lets the facts interfear with his position.

Jon
My friend your last sentence of your post was right on target

wow, a read like this  :(    :rolleyes:  makes me realize just how rare they are here.    

thats something to smile about, thanks Mike for the info about the lighthouses