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.