I’m back! And it looks like you've been having a good discussion.
You weren’t arguing collective rights now were you Woodsy? Next you’ll be telling me it takes a village…
But seriously, the collective ownership of the game animals by the people of the State ends at the discretion of the animal. I hunt a mile from the state line, and Deebz hunts between me and that line at times. And I know for fact that many of those deer cross back and forth from being the “property” of Hoosiers to those of the Land of Lincoln.
Honestly, they’re simply being managed thru regulation and taxation by the State. I would argue they are the natural resource of the property they are standing on. If that is private property…they are in the property owner’s possession.
Shaman is correct, the United States Constitution does not grant us rights. It has, however, provided us with some protections of certain (not all) inalienable rights.
Retch, one does not need to look to the Bill of Rights to understand rights. The BOR did not grant us rights any more than the Constitution did originally. (The bill of rights were not part of the original Constitution they were added in 1791 and additional amendments have followed since then) You surely wouldn’t argue rights did not exist before 1791? Did I call you Shirley?
…anyhow, the list you provided and other enumerations in the Constitution as it is today are protections of rights that exist simple from being. They were endowed by the Creator and they cannot be taken from you. They are inalienable.
Ever notice that the “enumerated rights” are limitations on government? They are not limitations on individuals, they are protections afforded to the individual restricting oppression of the government. That's becasue rights belong to the individual, not the collective.
That’s the crux of Obamacare. If health care is a right, how does Obamacare limit the government from infringing upon that right? There’s a $64,000.00 question.
So back on topic, rights exist by simply being, and they infer nothing upon another. Therein lays the natural limitation of one’s rights. When exercise of your right imposes upon another, you have exceeded its boundaries. That is the difference between reasonable limitations and anarchy.
As Bastiat pointed out, “Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws...” While the original piece I posted gave credit to Jefferson for penning "...the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" in the Declaration of Independence, his original draft read “life, liberty and property”. But ultimately it is the “liberty” of ownership; “property”, that provides man with the capability of the “Pursuit” (hunt) to sustain “Life”.
Some are looking through narrow glasses. While it may be what has brought us here together, hunting is not limited to deer, or game animals, it is a quest, a search, the pursuit...
Live to Hunt, Hunt to Live.