# Amish hunting yotes from the truck today



## wally-eye (Oct 27, 2004)

Bambicidal Maniac said:


> It is the responsibility of those who would restrict our behavior to justify the restriction. It is not our responsibility to justify why would do whatever we would want to do. If nobody's property rights are being violated and we have a license and the species is in season and safety is not an issue, what is the necessity for the law?




They have justified why it's illegal and a safety issue.....you however still haven't explained why it is a unjust law........whether its your responsibility or not.........


----------



## i missed again (Sep 7, 2008)

Bambicidal Maniac said:


> Never got a ticket for anything I think is silly. Just wondering why nobody can come up with a reasonable justification for keeping an otherwise legal hunter from shooting from a stopped vehicle. If I can shoot from a road and shoot from a blind, why can't I shoot from a road from a blind that has an engine in it?


why did you use the word otherwise


----------



## Tagz (Sep 22, 2005)

Wow....Got around to reading some of his previous topics. Its gotta be someone just messing around. No way someone can be really like that. Had me going for a little while. Not fun now that I figured it out though.


----------



## Thunderhead (Feb 2, 2002)

Cause you'll shoot your eye out chasing them down. There's no law against chasing game on foot, why not from your truck. I mean, it's just another way of getting from point A to point B right ?

Somebody please put a stop to this nonsense.


----------



## Bambicidal Maniac (Feb 4, 2011)

Thunderhead said:


> Am I really the only one seeing a distinct pattern here ?


Do you follow everyone that you see breaking the law and call the police on your cell phone and bear witness against them? No? Then why should I risk my health getting upset over seeing somebody break a law that you can't justify?


----------



## Thunderhead (Feb 2, 2002)

tagz said:


> wow....got around to reading some of his previous topics. Its gotta be someone just messing around. No way someone can be really like that. Had me going for a little while. Not fun now that i figured it out though.


*finally !!!!!!*


----------



## Thunderhead (Feb 2, 2002)

Bambicidal Maniac said:


> Do you follow everyone that you see breaking the law and call the police on your cell phone and bear witness against them? No? Then why should I risk my health getting upset over seeing somebody break a law that you can't justify?


Originally Posted by Bambicidal Maniac 
It seems more to me that others are reading carelessly. One guy accuses me of condoning illegal activities. 



Bambicidal Maniac said:


> I don't think the fact that it's illegal is important.


----------



## Bambicidal Maniac (Feb 4, 2011)

wally-eye said:


> They have justified why it's illegal and a safety issue.....you however still haven't explained why it is a unjust law........whether its your responsibility or not.........


Nobody has justified why it's illegal or a safety issue. A law that is unjustifiable is an unjust restriction on our liberties.


----------



## Bambicidal Maniac (Feb 4, 2011)

i missed again said:


> why did you use the word otherwise


Because the law makes people lawbreakers for no justifiable reason.


----------



## wally-eye (Oct 27, 2004)

Bambicidal Maniac said:


> Do you follow everyone that you see breaking the law and call the police on your cell phone and bear witness against them? No? Then why should I risk my health getting upset over seeing somebody break a law that you can't justify?




You know you sound a lot like an old neighbor of mine. He totally believed that he only needed to obey the laws that he wanted to.... Last I knew he was still in prison for opening his house door with a loaded shotgun leveled at a state LEO,,,...his explanation "I thought I could"...

He's lucky he only got a few bumps and prison time....


----------



## Thunderhead (Feb 2, 2002)

Thunderhead said:


> [QUOTE [/COLOR]
> 
> Am I really the only one seeing a distinct pattern here ?


Not anymore. Thank God.


----------



## wally-eye (Oct 27, 2004)

Bambicidal Maniac said:


> Nobody has justified why it's illegal or a safety issue. A law that is unjustifiable is an unjust restriction on our liberties.




Again you kick the can down the road with your refusal to explain why it's not a safety issue and is unjust................... 

Your explanation is needed why this law is unjust..........

TH you have his number...........sweet.......


----------



## Bambicidal Maniac (Feb 4, 2011)

Thunderhead said:


> Originally Posted by Bambicidal Maniac
> It seems more to me that others are reading carelessly. One guy accuses me of condoning illegal activities.
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## i missed again (Sep 7, 2008)

if your not condoning illegal hunting again i ask why you used the word otherwise when talking about the hunter you just ignord my ?


----------



## Thunderhead (Feb 2, 2002)

I've already proved it, and by the looks of things, other guys are finally getting wise to you too.


----------



## Tagz (Sep 22, 2005)

I know I am not passing judgment on just 1 statement, but rather many. But sticking to just this thread.



> So, there's no such thing as a stupid law that deserves to be ignored?


Dont think that is out of context.


----------



## tmilldrummer (Feb 7, 2012)

I don't know why I am wasting my time... but I am going to try to shed a little light on why it is a justifiable law. Hopefully most hunters that go out and set up a blind or stand take the time to know where all houses and other structures where humans may be are around them. They are able to know which directions they can shoot safely. When driving down the road and pulling over to shoot at a coyote, the hunter has no idea what lies behind it and could very well be shooting towards someone or someones home. This is Lower Michigan which is getting more and more over populated. It is not safe. That is one good reason why it is a law.


----------



## Bambicidal Maniac (Feb 4, 2011)

wally-eye said:


> Again you kick the can down the road with your refusal to explain why it's not a safety issue and is unjust...................
> 
> Your explanation is needed why this law is unjust..........


It is a requirement of those who would restrict our behavior to justify the restriction. "Because I want to" is sufficient justification for allowing me to do something when it is not necessary to prevent me from doing it. Nobody has presented a reason why shooting from a stopped vehicle is worth preventing. We allow people to drink and we allow people to drive, but we make it illegal to drink too much and then drive.


----------



## Bambicidal Maniac (Feb 4, 2011)

i missed again said:


> if your not condoning illegal hunting again i ask why you used the word otherwise when talking about the hunter you just ignord my ?


I'm not condoning illegal hunting. I'm addressing the issue of whether the law is necessary. If the only point of the law is to make the act illegal then it isn't a necessary law. If it isn't a necessary law, why do we have it?


----------



## wally-eye (Oct 27, 2004)

Bambicidal Maniac said:


> It is a requirement of those who would restrict our behavior to justify the restriction. "Because I want to" is sufficient justification for allowing me to do something when it is not necessary to prevent me from doing it. Nobody has presented a reason why shooting from a stopped vehicle is worth preventing. We allow people to drink and we allow people to drive, but we make it illegal to drink too much and then drive.




*Basis law #101......* 

To *prove *a law is unjust you must first explain *why* it is unjust....... 

Your legislators do peruse this web site......I'm sure they'd be interested in your explanation.......


----------



## i missed again (Sep 7, 2008)

Bambicidal Maniac said:


> It is a requirement of those who would restrict our behavior to justify the restriction. "Because I want to" is sufficient justification for allowing me to do something when it is not necessary to prevent me from doing it. Nobody has presented a reason why shooting from a stopped vehicle is worth preventing. We allow people to drink and we allow people to drive, but we make it illegal to drink too much and then drive.


----------



## Bambicidal Maniac (Feb 4, 2011)

Thunderhead said:


> I've already proved it, and by the looks of things, other guys are finally getting wise to you too.


You've only proved that others can't answer the same questions you can't bring yourself to answer. What is the necessity of the law? How does not getting mad over seeing someone break it equate to condoning it?


----------



## Thunderhead (Feb 2, 2002)

Bambicidal Maniac said:


> If the only point of the law is to make the act illegal then it isn't a necessary law.




wow :lol:


----------



## Thunderhead (Feb 2, 2002)

Bambicidal Maniac said:


> How does not getting mad over seeing someone break it equate to condoning it?




Originally Posted by Bambicidal Maniac 
I don't think the fact that it's illegal is important.


----------



## Bambicidal Maniac (Feb 4, 2011)

tmilldrummer said:


> I don't know why I am wasting my time... but I am going to try to shed a little light on why it is a justifiable law. Hopefully most hunters that go out and set up a blind or stand take the time to know where all houses and other structures where humans may be are around them. They are able to know which directions they can shoot safely. When driving down the road and pulling over to shoot at a coyote, the hunter has no idea what lies behind it and could very well be shooting towards someone or someones home. This is Lower Michigan which is getting more and more over populated. It is not safe. That is one good reason why it is a law.


That doesn't fly wherever it is legal to stand and shoot from. If the only difference between standing where it is legal and sitting in a stopped vehicle is that you're sitting in a stopped vehicle, it isn't justifiable to make it illegal. Where it is illegal to stand and shoot, it should also be illegal to sit in a blind or a vehicle and shoot.


----------



## Tagz (Sep 22, 2005)

tmilldrummer said:


> I don't know why I am wasting my time... but I am going to try to shed a little light on why it is a justifiable law. Hopefully most hunters that go out and set up a blind or stand take the time to know where all houses and other structures where humans may be are around them. They are able to know which directions they can shoot safely. When driving down the road and pulling over to shoot at a coyote, the hunter has no idea what lies behind it and could very well be shooting towards someone or someones home. This is Lower Michigan which is getting more and more over populated. It is not safe. That is one good reason why it is a law.


Very good explanation there IMO. Im sure you dont agree though do you Maniac? Is it ok if I just call you Maniac?


----------



## i missed again (Sep 7, 2008)

Bambicidal Maniac said:


> You've only proved that others can't answer the same questions you can't bring yourself to answer. What is the necessity of the law? How does not getting mad over seeing someone break it equate to condoning it?


you have indicated that breaking dumb laws is ok till the law is changed it dose not matter the necessity its the law and breaking it make you a ciminal


----------



## Bambicidal Maniac (Feb 4, 2011)

wally-eye said:


> *Basis law #101......*
> 
> To *prove *a law is unjust you must first explain *why* it is unjust.......
> 
> Your legislators do peruse this web site......I'm sure they'd be interested in your explanation.......


It isn't up to me to prove that a law is unjust unless I get charged with it. It is a requirement of the law to be just, which includes being necessary for some purpose other than to make an otherwise legal act illegal.

If a society does not respect the right of the individual to do what does not violate the rights of others (Life, *Liberty* and *the Pursuit of Happiness*), it is being unnecessarily restrictive.


----------



## Tagz (Sep 22, 2005)

The explanation given was good enough for me. So that brings up the next thing. If a law is just in 90% of the publics mind, does that mean that the 10% do not need to obey it?


----------



## Bambicidal Maniac (Feb 4, 2011)

Tagz said:


> Very good explanation there IMO. Im sure you dont agree though do you Maniac? Is it ok if I just call you Maniac?


I pointed out that if it was legal to stand and shoot from the same place, there was no justification for making it illegal to shoot from within the vehicle.

Whatever you call me doesn't change that.


----------



## wally-eye (Oct 27, 2004)

Tagz said:


> The explanation given was good enough for me. So that brings up the next thing. If a law is just in 90% of the publics mind, does that mean that the 10% do not need to obey it?



:lol::lol::lol: Good one....but I'd put it more like 95% to 5%.....


----------



## Thunderhead (Feb 2, 2002)

Fellas, your being played. 
The only way to not is to stop responding to this nonsense. The goal here is to waste our time and make us out to be fools. 

We know the laws and the danger of not following these common sense laws. Common sense being the key word here.
We were taught these basic rules by our Fathers when we were young. We know what they are there for. We are hunters and outdoorsmen, we know the dangers involved , the possible senerios, and the consequenses. 

He's making a mockery of us.

Enough is enough.

It's time to stop playing his game.


----------



## dead short (Sep 15, 2009)

Holy wah!! Enough babble talk. 


Posted from my iPhone.


----------

