Titties

A forum not related to waterfowl for discussing the more controversial and hot topic issues in our world from immigration, politics, the war, etc..

Moderators: Smackaduck, MM

Re: Poachers

Postby assateague » Tue Sep 10, 2013 1:57 pm

assateague wrote:So what else do I "own" that I have to:

1. Get permission from someone else to use
2. Pay someone else for me to use it
3. Be told when I can use it
4. Be told where I can use it
5. Be told what I can do with it when I'm not "using" it
6. Be told how I can use it.
7. Have my use of it revoked for not using it in the way they told me I had to



If anyone actually believes the "people" own the ducks, they're a silly fool.


bighop wrote:We've given examples of multiple items those each apply to, not just migratory birds....


No, you haven't. You've given a example which #1 doesn't apply to, and another example which #6 doesn't apply to, and so on. ALL of these apply to game. Given all of these, in any other circumstance, would they not imply ownership? If I get to dictate to someone all of the above in regard to ANYTHING, would ownership of that "thing" not be a prerequisite? Or would you most likely tell me to go pound sand if I didn't own it?

bighop wrote:It was an attempt to set a precedent that you own plenty of things that are regulated in their use.

Of course I do. But I assure you, nobody is subject to all of the above in regard to anything which they own. And when I get tired of them, I can sell them. Except my ducks and deer, of course. Apparently I'm saddled with them forever.

bighop wrote:You are now attempting to apply the argument in reverse and want to know what you own that is regulated in the same manner as wild game is regulated.

Exactly. Because you and I both know that if those conditions are applied, then you most assuredly don't own it. And furthermore, since it is such a "dumb" argument, then it should be easy to refute. But yet it hasn't been.


It's also nice to hear that you're ok with having the government regulate guns in all manner of ways.
WOLVERINES

Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Let a man vote to give himself a fish and he eats until society collapses.
User avatar
assateague
Emu hunter extraordinaire
 
Posts: 21277
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 12:25 pm
Location: Eastern Shore, People's Republic of Maryland


Re: Poachers

Postby bighop » Tue Sep 10, 2013 2:06 pm

assateague wrote:It's also nice to hear that you're ok with having the government regulate guns in all manner of ways.

When did I say I was ok with it?
Rick Hall 2016
He'll turn it all around. Unless he doesn't.
User avatar
bighop
Sugar Daddy
 
Posts: 7741
Joined: Thu Sep 15, 2011 2:59 pm
Location: Texas

Re: Poachers

Postby Sir Big Spur » Tue Sep 10, 2013 2:30 pm

bighop wrote:
assateague wrote:It's also nice to hear that you're ok with having the government regulate guns in all manner of ways.

When did I say I was ok with it?

For real assateague
Mayonnaise colored Benz, I push Miracle Whips.
User avatar
Sir Big Spur
hunter
 
Posts: 2149
Joined: Sat Dec 06, 2008 11:14 pm
Location: NC

Re: Poachers

Postby boney fingers » Tue Sep 10, 2013 2:30 pm

Ive never said that feds don't waste money or that it couldnt be managed better, only that migratory birds are best managed with cooperation with all parties. The states don't exactly have a great track record on spending either ( my state still maintains a separate fish commission and game commission). When oranges and oil grow wings and fly we can talk about them but for now lets stick to ducks. Im all for less federal dollars going to ducks, but I believe the original purpose of the migratory bird treaty is still valid today.
boney fingers
hunter
 
Posts: 863
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 6:30 pm

Re: Poachers

Postby bighop » Tue Sep 10, 2013 2:34 pm

assateague wrote:
assateague wrote:So what else do I "own" that I have to:

1. Get permission from someone else to use
2. Pay someone else for me to use it
3. Be told when I can use it
4. Be told where I can use it
5. Be told what I can do with it when I'm not "using" it
6. Be told how I can use it.
7. Have my use of it revoked for not using it in the way they told me I had to



If anyone actually believes the "people" own the ducks, they're a silly fool.


bighop wrote:We've given examples of multiple items those each apply to, not just migratory birds....


No, you haven't. You've given a example which #1 doesn't apply to, and another example which #6 doesn't apply to, and so on. ALL of these apply to game. Given all of these, in any other circumstance, would they not imply ownership? If I get to dictate to someone all of the above in regard to ANYTHING, would ownership of that "thing" not be a prerequisite? Or would you most likely tell me to go pound sand if I didn't own it?

I never said it did. My quote above was not in response to your quote as you've made it appear. Read the whole thing next time.

assateague wrote:
bighop wrote:It was an attempt to set a precedent that you own plenty of things that are regulated in their use.

Of course I do.

Ok, that's it then. Your question was to provide examples of things you own that you cannot use as you please. You've recognized you own plenty of things that are regulated in use.

assateague wrote:But I assure you, nobody is subject to all of the above in regard to anything which they own.

No, those regulations only apply to wild game. Zoning regulations only apply to land. Handgun regulations only apply to handguns. See, it only works one way, you can't go backwards.
assateague wrote:And when I get tired of them, I can sell them. Except my ducks and deer, of course. Apparently I'm saddled with them forever.

You can throw them away when you're tired of them. That's not illegal. You may also gift them to anyone you please. That's perfectly legal.

assateague wrote:
bighop wrote:You are now attempting to apply the argument in reverse and want to know what you own that is regulated in the same manner as wild game is regulated.

Exactly. Because you and I both know that if those conditions are applied, then you most assuredly don't own it. And furthermore, since it is such a "dumb" argument, then it should be easy to refute. But yet it hasn't been.

Try as I might, I can find no other definition of "own" that comes anywhere near yours. If you can back up your definition of "own" please do. Otherwise, it may just be a product of emu related dementia.
Rick Hall 2016
He'll turn it all around. Unless he doesn't.
User avatar
bighop
Sugar Daddy
 
Posts: 7741
Joined: Thu Sep 15, 2011 2:59 pm
Location: Texas

Re: Poachers

Postby whistlin_wings » Tue Sep 10, 2013 2:37 pm

boney fingers wrote:Ive never said that feds don't waste money or that it couldnt be managed better, only that migratory birds are best managed with cooperation with all parties. The states don't exactly have a great track record on spending either ( my state still maintains a separate fish commission and game commission). When oranges and oil grow wings and fly we can talk about them but for now lets stick to ducks. Im all for less federal dollars going to ducks, but I believe the original purpose of the migratory bird treaty is still valid today.

Well oil sort of has legs, the bakken shale formation is what they're drilling in ND but it runs under Montana and Canada. ND should be sharing the oil money with Canada and Montana because they're stealing their resources.
You may all go to hell, and I will go to Texas.
User avatar
whistlin_wings
State Moderator
 
Posts: 9290
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 8:54 am
Location: CENTEX

Re: Poachers

Postby Sir Big Spur » Tue Sep 10, 2013 2:38 pm

whistlin_wings wrote:
boney fingers wrote:Ive never said that feds don't waste money or that it couldnt be managed better, only that migratory birds are best managed with cooperation with all parties. The states don't exactly have a great track record on spending either ( my state still maintains a separate fish commission and game commission). When oranges and oil grow wings and fly we can talk about them but for now lets stick to ducks. Im all for less federal dollars going to ducks, but I believe the original purpose of the migratory bird treaty is still valid today.

Well oil sort of has legs, the bakken shale formation is what they're drilling in ND but it runs under Montana and Canada. ND should be sharing the oil money with Canada and Montana because they're stealing their resources.

That's not nice.
Mayonnaise colored Benz, I push Miracle Whips.
User avatar
Sir Big Spur
hunter
 
Posts: 2149
Joined: Sat Dec 06, 2008 11:14 pm
Location: NC

Re: Poachers

Postby bighop » Tue Sep 10, 2013 2:40 pm

whistlin_wings wrote:
boney fingers wrote:Ive never said that feds don't waste money or that it couldnt be managed better, only that migratory birds are best managed with cooperation with all parties. The states don't exactly have a great track record on spending either ( my state still maintains a separate fish commission and game commission). When oranges and oil grow wings and fly we can talk about them but for now lets stick to ducks. Im all for less federal dollars going to ducks, but I believe the original purpose of the migratory bird treaty is still valid today.

Well oil sort of has legs, the bakken shale formation is what they're drilling in ND but it runs under Montana and Canada. ND should be sharing the oil money with Canada and Montana because they're stealing their resources.

ND is trading oil for ducks.
Rick Hall 2016
He'll turn it all around. Unless he doesn't.
User avatar
bighop
Sugar Daddy
 
Posts: 7741
Joined: Thu Sep 15, 2011 2:59 pm
Location: Texas

Re: Poachers

Postby boney fingers » Tue Sep 10, 2013 2:43 pm

whistlin_wings wrote:
boney fingers wrote:Ive never said that feds don't waste money or that it couldnt be managed better, only that migratory birds are best managed with cooperation with all parties. The states don't exactly have a great track record on spending either ( my state still maintains a separate fish commission and game commission). When oranges and oil grow wings and fly we can talk about them but for now lets stick to ducks. Im all for less federal dollars going to ducks, but I believe the original purpose of the migratory bird treaty is still valid today.

Well oil sort of has legs, the bakken shale formation is what they're drilling in ND but it runs under Montana and Canada. ND should be sharing the oil money with Canada and Montana because they're stealing their resources.


I guess we only need one well, forget the pipeline from Canada. Unfortunately oil and gas don't move through the shale well, if it did we wouldn't have to frac and we would have drilled it a long time ago.
boney fingers
hunter
 
Posts: 863
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 6:30 pm

Re: Poachers

Postby boney fingers » Tue Sep 10, 2013 2:46 pm

bighop wrote:
whistlin_wings wrote:
boney fingers wrote:Ive never said that feds don't waste money or that it couldnt be managed better, only that migratory birds are best managed with cooperation with all parties. The states don't exactly have a great track record on spending either ( my state still maintains a separate fish commission and game commission). When oranges and oil grow wings and fly we can talk about them but for now lets stick to ducks. Im all for less federal dollars going to ducks, but I believe the original purpose of the migratory bird treaty is still valid today.

Well oil sort of has legs, the bakken shale formation is what they're drilling in ND but it runs under Montana and Canada. ND should be sharing the oil money with Canada and Montana because they're stealing their resources.

ND is trading oil for ducks.



Sounds like a good trade to me; how many barrels do I get for a greenhead?
boney fingers
hunter
 
Posts: 863
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 6:30 pm

Re: Poachers

Postby assateague » Tue Sep 10, 2013 3:03 pm

bighop wrote:
assateague wrote:
bighop wrote:It was an attempt to set a precedent that you own plenty of things that are regulated in their use.

Of course I do.

Ok, that's it then. Your question was to provide examples of things you own that you cannot use as you please. You've recognized you own plenty of things that are regulated in use.


No, it wasn't. My question was to provide something that you:
1. Get permission from someone else to use
2. Pay someone else for me to use it
3. Be told when I can use it
4. Be told where I can use it
5. Be told what I can do with it when I'm not "using" it
6. Be told how I can use it.
7. Have my use of it revoked for not using it in the way they told me I had to

This is an inclusive list, not a cherry picking list. As for zoning regulations, I have never argued that you own land, since, if you fail to pay property taxes, it will most assuredly go away. Same as paying a mortgage in perpetuity, really.

bighop wrote:You can throw them away when you're tired of them. That's not illegal. You may also gift them to anyone you please. That's perfectly legal.

So I can shoot a duck, and mud stomp it, as long as I don't do that to more than one black duck and 5 other ducks a day?

bighop wrote:You are now attempting to apply the argument in reverse and want to know what you own that is regulated in the same manner as wild game is regulated.

No, what I'm trying to do is get it through your thick head that you are missing the point. Here, try this one:


There's a ham sandwich in the refrigerator.

I have to ask my wife if I can eat the ham sandwich. She says, yes, but you have to pay me $3 first. And then stipulates that I may only eat it in the kitchen, between 4:00 PM and 5:00 PM this afternoon, using a fork and knife, and that if I'm not eating it, it must stay wrapped up in two layers of wax paper on the bottom shelf of the fridge. And that if I don't do any of these things, then I may never eat another ham sandwich from the fridge.

Now you tell me- who owns the damn ham sandwich in that scenario?
WOLVERINES

Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Let a man vote to give himself a fish and he eats until society collapses.
User avatar
assateague
Emu hunter extraordinaire
 
Posts: 21277
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 12:25 pm
Location: Eastern Shore, People's Republic of Maryland

Re: Poachers

Postby whistlin_wings » Tue Sep 10, 2013 3:07 pm

boney fingers wrote:
whistlin_wings wrote:
boney fingers wrote:Ive never said that feds don't waste money or that it couldnt be managed better, only that migratory birds are best managed with cooperation with all parties. The states don't exactly have a great track record on spending either ( my state still maintains a separate fish commission and game commission). When oranges and oil grow wings and fly we can talk about them but for now lets stick to ducks. Im all for less federal dollars going to ducks, but I believe the original purpose of the migratory bird treaty is still valid today.

Well oil sort of has legs, the bakken shale formation is what they're drilling in ND but it runs under Montana and Canada. ND should be sharing the oil money with Canada and Montana because they're stealing their resources.


I guess we only need one well, forget the pipeline from Canada. Unfortunately oil and gas don't move through the shale well, if it did we wouldn't have to frac and we would have drilled it a long time ago.

But is it still not essentially one big deposit spread out under different states/countries?
You may all go to hell, and I will go to Texas.
User avatar
whistlin_wings
State Moderator
 
Posts: 9290
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 8:54 am
Location: CENTEX

Re: Poachers

Postby whistlin_wings » Tue Sep 10, 2013 3:10 pm

assateague wrote:There's a ham sandwich in the refrigerator.

I have to ask my wife if I can eat the ham sandwich. She says, yes, but you have to pay me $3 first. And then stipulates that I may only eat it in the kitchen, between 4:00 PM and 5:00 PM this afternoon, using a fork and knife, and that if I'm not eating it, it must stay wrapped up in two layers of wax paper on the bottom shelf of the fridge. And that if I don't do any of these things, then I may never eat another ham sandwich from the fridge.

Now you tell me- who owns the damn ham sandwich in that scenario?

Obama, he made the sandwich, kitchen, knife and fork, wax paper, and fridge.
You may all go to hell, and I will go to Texas.
User avatar
whistlin_wings
State Moderator
 
Posts: 9290
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 8:54 am
Location: CENTEX

Re: Poachers

Postby bighop » Tue Sep 10, 2013 3:12 pm

assateague wrote:No, it wasn't. My question was to provide something that you:
1. Get permission from someone else to use
2. Pay someone else for me to use it
3. Be told when I can use it
4. Be told where I can use it
5. Be told what I can do with it when I'm not "using" it
6. Be told how I can use it.
7. Have my use of it revoked for not using it in the way they told me I had to

Yes, it was. Refresh your emu riddled memory here.
The above list of requirements didn't make an appearance until here.
How exactly is that not adding stipulations?

So where was that support for your definition of "own?"
Rick Hall 2016
He'll turn it all around. Unless he doesn't.
User avatar
bighop
Sugar Daddy
 
Posts: 7741
Joined: Thu Sep 15, 2011 2:59 pm
Location: Texas

Re: Poachers

Postby assateague » Tue Sep 10, 2013 3:14 pm

bighop wrote:
assateague wrote:No, it wasn't. My question was to provide something that you:
1. Get permission from someone else to use
2. Pay someone else for me to use it
3. Be told when I can use it
4. Be told where I can use it
5. Be told what I can do with it when I'm not "using" it
6. Be told how I can use it.
7. Have my use of it revoked for not using it in the way they told me I had to

Yes, it was. Refresh your emu riddled memory here.
The above list of requirements didn't make an appearance until here.
How exactly is that not adding stipulations?

So where was that support for your definition of "own?"



Who owns the ham sandwich?
WOLVERINES

Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Let a man vote to give himself a fish and he eats until society collapses.
User avatar
assateague
Emu hunter extraordinaire
 
Posts: 21277
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 12:25 pm
Location: Eastern Shore, People's Republic of Maryland

Re: Poachers

Postby bighop » Tue Sep 10, 2013 3:14 pm

assateague wrote:
bighop wrote:
assateague wrote:No, it wasn't. My question was to provide something that you:
1. Get permission from someone else to use
2. Pay someone else for me to use it
3. Be told when I can use it
4. Be told where I can use it
5. Be told what I can do with it when I'm not "using" it
6. Be told how I can use it.
7. Have my use of it revoked for not using it in the way they told me I had to

Yes, it was. Refresh your emu riddled memory here.
The above list of requirements didn't make an appearance until here.
How exactly is that not adding stipulations?

So where was that support for your definition of "own?"



Who owns the ham sandwich?

What does own mean?
Rick Hall 2016
He'll turn it all around. Unless he doesn't.
User avatar
bighop
Sugar Daddy
 
Posts: 7741
Joined: Thu Sep 15, 2011 2:59 pm
Location: Texas

Re: Poachers

Postby assateague » Tue Sep 10, 2013 3:27 pm

I'm going to come take your vehicle. Leave the keys in it, please. And if/when you call the cops, please don't refer to it as "your" car.

K thanks.
WOLVERINES

Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Let a man vote to give himself a fish and he eats until society collapses.
User avatar
assateague
Emu hunter extraordinaire
 
Posts: 21277
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 12:25 pm
Location: Eastern Shore, People's Republic of Maryland

Re: Poachers

Postby boney fingers » Tue Sep 10, 2013 3:45 pm

whistlin_wings wrote:
boney fingers wrote:
whistlin_wings wrote:
boney fingers wrote:Ive never said that feds don't waste money or that it couldnt be managed better, only that migratory birds are best managed with cooperation with all parties. The states don't exactly have a great track record on spending either ( my state still maintains a separate fish commission and game commission). When oranges and oil grow wings and fly we can talk about them but for now lets stick to ducks. Im all for less federal dollars going to ducks, but I believe the original purpose of the migratory bird treaty is still valid today.

Well oil sort of has legs, the bakken shale formation is what they're drilling in ND but it runs under Montana and Canada. ND should be sharing the oil money with Canada and Montana because they're stealing their resources.


I guess we only need one well, forget the pipeline from Canada. Unfortunately oil and gas don't move through the shale well, if it did we wouldn't have to frac and we would have drilled it a long time ago.

But is it still not essentially one big deposit spread out under different states/countries?



It doesn't migrate, water would be a much better example.
boney fingers
hunter
 
Posts: 863
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 6:30 pm

Re: Poachers

Postby bighop » Tue Sep 10, 2013 4:30 pm

assateague wrote:I'm going to come take your vehicle. Leave the keys in it, please. And if/when you call the cops, please don't refer to it as "your" car.

K thanks.

Is there a title to that sammich? That would certainly make the answer easier.
Rick Hall 2016
He'll turn it all around. Unless he doesn't.
User avatar
bighop
Sugar Daddy
 
Posts: 7741
Joined: Thu Sep 15, 2011 2:59 pm
Location: Texas

Re: Poachers

Postby assateague » Tue Sep 10, 2013 5:47 pm

So having a title denotes ownership. Interesting...
WOLVERINES

Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Let a man vote to give himself a fish and he eats until society collapses.
User avatar
assateague
Emu hunter extraordinaire
 
Posts: 21277
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 12:25 pm
Location: Eastern Shore, People's Republic of Maryland

Re: Poachers

Postby jehler » Tue Sep 10, 2013 5:49 pm

That's my hammer, it doesn't have a title

ImageUploadedByTapatalk1378856937.305827.jpg
Buy it, use it, break it, fix it,
Trash it, change it, mail - upgrade it,
Charge it, point it, zoom it, press it,
Snap it, work it, quick - erase it,
Write it, cut it, paste it, save it,
Load it, check it, quick - rewrite it,
Plug it, play it, burn it
User avatar
jehler
thread hi-jacking expert and a great guy
 
Posts: 17517
Joined: Sat Nov 18, 2006 2:52 pm
Location: Traverse City, MI

Re: Poachers

Postby Underradar » Tue Sep 10, 2013 6:18 pm

Oil and gas does migrate across land boundaries, underground and, like ducks, it is subject to the Rule of Capture, in that no one owns it underground, only when it is brought to the surface is it susceptible of ownership.

I must point out that some of you appear to be arguing, and of course, none of you can win.
My lab died, and no one on Duckhuntingchat even cared.

Google I'm feeling lucky: DU biologist stole my car

You may win a fight, but you can never win an argument.
User avatar
Underradar
hunter
 
Posts: 5166
Joined: Fri Jul 09, 2010 5:09 pm
Location: Rut Coon, LA

Re: Poachers

Postby boney fingers » Tue Sep 10, 2013 6:42 pm

Underradar wrote:Oil and gas does migrate across land boundaries, underground and, like ducks, it is subject to the Rule of Capture, in that no one owns it underground, only when it is brought to the surface is it susceptible of ownership.

I must point out that some of you appear to be arguing, and of course, none of you can win.



Migration of gas and oil happens on a very small scale; let me know when the oil in Alaska heads down to Mexico for the winter and then heads back in the spring.
boney fingers
hunter
 
Posts: 863
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 6:30 pm

Re: Poachers

Postby bighop » Tue Sep 10, 2013 7:09 pm

boney fingers wrote:
Underradar wrote:Oil and gas does migrate across land boundaries, underground and, like ducks, it is subject to the Rule of Capture, in that no one owns it underground, only when it is brought to the surface is it susceptible of ownership.

I must point out that some of you appear to be arguing, and of course, none of you can win.



Migration of gas and oil happens on a very small scale; let me know when the oil in Alaska heads down to Mexico for the winter and then heads back in the spring.

Can you prove it doesn't?
Rick Hall 2016
He'll turn it all around. Unless he doesn't.
User avatar
bighop
Sugar Daddy
 
Posts: 7741
Joined: Thu Sep 15, 2011 2:59 pm
Location: Texas

Re: Poachers

Postby bighop » Tue Sep 10, 2013 7:10 pm

jehler wrote:That's my hammer, it doesn't have a title

ImageUploadedByTapatalk1378856937.305827.jpg

That's Ruger Titanium's hammer. He put his name on it.
Rick Hall 2016
He'll turn it all around. Unless he doesn't.
User avatar
bighop
Sugar Daddy
 
Posts: 7741
Joined: Thu Sep 15, 2011 2:59 pm
Location: Texas

PreviousNext

Return to Controversial Issues Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests