Wow this was fast

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • dburkhead

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Mar 18, 2008
    3,930
    36
    No, not at all. I want all Americans to have the privledges. Most of which are already guaranteed by the Constitution, but denied by Washington's corruption.

    That's a fair enough position. Mind you, I do think there have to be limits on even Freedom of Religion (Consider, for instance, someone who "converted" to a belief in certain Central American religions, of if some proponents of modern Asatru wanted to resurrect old practices in the worship of Odin). The real question is where to draw the line. (A pet peeve of mine is people saying "you have to draw the line somewhere" in favor of the status quo when the argument is about where that line should be drawn. Response is, "Yes, you have to draw the line somewhere, and I think it should be drawn over here instead of over there.")

    As for "living off the land," at least some nations, in some states, do have that "right." They need not obtain hunting or fishing licenses or observe legal bag limits. This has caused controversy because some members of those nations, far from being the "at one with nature, taking only what he needs" of myth, instead uses that "right" to take large catches that essentially go to waste. (Not saying all, or even most, but it does highlight the need to have some way of enforcing restraint for the few who spoil it for everyone.)
     

    SavageEagle

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Apr 27, 2008
    19,568
    38
    That's a fair enough position. Mind you, I do think there have to be limits on even Freedom of Religion (Consider, for instance, someone who "converted" to a belief in certain Central American religions, of if some proponents of modern Asatru wanted to resurrect old practices in the worship of Odin). The real question is where to draw the line. (A pet peeve of mine is people saying "you have to draw the line somewhere" in favor of the status quo when the argument is about where that line should be drawn. Response is, "Yes, you have to draw the line somewhere, and I think it should be drawn over here instead of over there.")

    As for "living off the land," at least some nations, in some states, do have that "right." They need not obtain hunting or fishing licenses or observe legal bag limits. This has caused controversy because some members of those nations, far from being the "at one with nature, taking only what he needs" of myth, instead uses that "right" to take large catches that essentially go to waste. (Not saying all, or even most, but it does highlight the need to have some way of enforcing restraint for the few who spoil it for everyone.)

    Oh I completely agree on both points. But with the Native American Ceremonies, they already let them do so on their own land, why not outside the reservation? Just seems like a double standard to me is all.
     

    dburkhead

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Mar 18, 2008
    3,930
    36
    Oh I completely agree on both points. But with the Native American Ceremonies, they already let them do so on their own land, why not outside the reservation? Just seems like a double standard to me is all.

    The "double standard" is actually in their favor. Nobody else is allowed to perform those kinds of ceremonies anywhere. Note that Native American religions aren't the only ones that involve (or have involved) mind-altering substances or animal sacrifice.

    It's basically a case of "normally this isn't allowed, but we'll let you do it anyway on this land set aside for you."
     

    INRanger

    Marksman
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Feb 13, 2009
    242
    16
    Native Americans would be hard pressed to assimilate into our society to work and live when almost all our morals and laws go against theirs. They stay on the Reservations by choice, kinda. They have no where else to go.

    We're talking about a culture that lived off the land and depended on no one but themselves and Mother Nature. Nature provided them everything they ever needed. They had more than one camp. A summer and winter camp. They had food to hunt. They made their own things from what Nature provided. We took that away from them. Now they make and sell what they can, forced to use casinos as revenue, etc. If nothing else we owe them more land. Give them some wide open land, more than what they have and let them be. They know how to live in harmony with Nature. Anyone who's spent time with them knows what I mean.

    One of the best soldiers I know is a full blood Lakota from the res. He still practices his religion. Reservation life sucks, I know I spent a month of leave visiting his family. Huge numbers of the residents of those reservations are drunks and addicts. My friend did not want that for himself or his children so he picked himself up by his bootstraps and DID something about it. When he goes home half the people are proud of him and the other half treat him like a traitor for wanting something more. Funny enough my soldiers from the ghetto get the SAME reaction. There situation sucks but it is only made permenant by their own inaction. I pity those that have no options not those that CHOOSE to do nothing.
     
    Top Bottom