quote:

Originally posted by bentaframe:
Hunting and the 2nd Amendment have nothing to do with each other !!! Open your eyes. Maybe remote Alaska there is still A SMALL AMOUNT of subsistence hunting and even then it is more cultural than a necessity. With both white and native americans its more of a desired life style than required for survival in the lower 48. Any method or tool the leftists can find to dismantle the 2nd Amendment they will use it to their full advantage.

I stated, "I am not equating hunting with the second amendment". I'm not sure how I can make that more clear.

The point I was trying to make is that if we start trying to limit the hunting rights that the treaty protects to exclude modern weapons, then we are doing what the antis are already attempting to do with the second amendment when they say that it shouldn't cover modern firearms.

In other words: if we say that hunting treaties only cover time period correct weapons then we start down the slippery slope that leads to the antis being able to argue that the second amendment only covers the firearms available when it was written. I'm not looking to argue the point, but I think that it is worth considering that if WE push this as hunters then we are giving the antis more leverage to use the same argument(that treaties/amendments/laws only cover the firearms available at the time they were written) dismantle the second amendment.



A totally different topic: Most of Alaska is rural and is open to subsistence hunting and fishing to rural residents of all backgrounds. It is part of the culture of rural Alaska. And even here it has very little to do with survival.

quote:

Originally posted by bentaframe:
Be careful how you argue this ! You give the libs and other groups reason and precedence to amend the Constitution of the United States. Our argument being " we need to abrogate these treaties based on time and cultural/societal change."

If successful the libs will turn it around and try too to apply the logic to getting rid of the Constitution.

bentaframe,

It is obvious to me now that I was unclear in explaining my position, because your point in bold was exactly what I was attempting to express.

Did anyone notice the summation is using language from the last two Indian S. Ct. cases.

The ram case did specifically and expressly overrule a prior case that said Statehood did invalidate the Treaty of Laramie, and the Oklahoma murder case.

This is going to be close. I do not like it. The question will be resolved around rather the Treaty of Laramie gave a right to hunt outside the territorial limits of the reservation.

the Court held that Wyoming's statehood did not void the Crow Tribe's right to hunt on "unoccupied lands of the United States" under an 1868 treaty, and that the Bighorn National Forest did not automatically become "occupied" when the forest was created.[1][2]

Indians...they want it all and they want it now
Been around them for decades, they are racist and greedy
No explanation, except they have no concept of responsibility...

quote:

Originally posted by boarkiller:
Indians...they want it all and they want it now
Been around them for decades, they are racist and greedy
No explanation, except they have no concept of responsibility...

They also only want the parts of the treaty enforced that benefits them not the or provisions that limit them.