A dozen armed agents raid animal shelter to execute captive baby deer

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!
  • Sfrandolph

    Shooter
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Nov 23, 2012
    868
    18
    Boone county
    Should this be used as a lesson? Would it not make the same illogical sense to now execute all those on welfare? Of course not. The people in the govt are totally insane.
     

    Kirk Freeman

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    9   0   0
    Mar 9, 2008
    48,064
    113
    Lafayette, Indiana
    Why can a person own a dog, and not a deer?

    Because the laws says this.

    Wildlife are property of the state.

    If you own a deer you are stealing from the state. This is about property rights.

    The state is the only entity who can own a deer? Some standard you have there.

    In the state of Wisconsin, the only entity that can own a deer is the state. It is the standard of property rights.
     

    Magneto

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Dec 6, 2009
    2,188
    48
    New Albany
    These types of raids are becoming SOP, and are no longer a rarity. The show of overwhelming firepower and para-military dress has no place in everyday law enforcement. When do people finally wake up and say enough?
     

    indyk

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    39   0   0
    Nov 22, 2008
    2,337
    83
    Alpha site
    These types of raids are becoming SOP, and are no longer a rarity. The show of overwhelming firepower and para-military dress has no place in everyday law enforcement. When do people finally wake up and say enough?

    This is exactly what I'm saying, These bozos couldn't wait to play dress-up, and practice extreme tactics in a situation such as this, ALL it would have taken was 1 individual from the DNR to talk about the situation and then that 1 agent can go to his truck, grab a cage, and take the deer away.

    BUT

    look what they done instead.

    Now I got my tin foil hat on.

    Now we have the DNR and local police acting like SPETSNAZ.

    I think the National Guard, NSA, CIA, ATF, DHS, DNR, FBI, Sheriffs Dept, State Police, are using like situations to "practice" per say, to use new aggressive tactics locally, to prepare for some far out domestic situation, or just a plain new initiative to "tighten up" on "civilians" in America.

    images


    Perhaps some of Ingo's Spetznas or local law enforcement can tell if this theory is correct??

     

    rambone

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Mar 3, 2009
    18,745
    83
    'Merica
    In the state of Wisconsin, the only entity that can own a deer is the state. It is the standard of property rights.

    It is an perversion of property rights. No property rights are recognized except for the government's illegitimate claims. Everyone else's property rights have been abolished.
     

    IndyDave1776

    Grandmaster
    Emeritus
    Rating - 100%
    12   0   0
    Jan 12, 2012
    27,286
    113
    It is an perversion of property rights. No property rights are recognized except for the government's illegitimate claims. Everyone else's property rights have been abolished.

    Agreed, especially considering that as previously mentioned, actual property rights would include taking responsibility for the damage that 'property' does to the property of others, which is NOT the case with state claims over animals. Besides, why should the state have rights over an animal residing in the state over the landowner on whose property the animal resides, eats, damages fences, and damages automobiles while crossing the road in proscribed areas?
     

    Kirk Freeman

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    9   0   0
    Mar 9, 2008
    48,064
    113
    Lafayette, Indiana
    It is an perversion of property rights. No property rights are recognized except for the government's illegitimate claims. Everyone else's property rights have been abolished.

    LOL.

    The only perversion here is the Rule of Man. Someone decides that they are above the rule of law and in their totalitarian fantasy a la L. Neil Smith decides what property rights are.

    The only thing that was abolished was the Rule of Man deciding to do whatever they want and everyone else's property rights be damned.

    That does not mean that this inane made-for-budget meetings ninja raid was warranted. The police should not be dressing as Das Reich and running over chickens in tanks.

    One guy with a .22 pistol and a clipboard could have handled this.
     

    Kirk Freeman

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    9   0   0
    Mar 9, 2008
    48,064
    113
    Lafayette, Indiana
    Besides, why should the state have rights over an animal residing in the state over the landowner on whose property the animal resides, eats, damages fences, and damages automobiles while crossing the road in proscribed areas?

    A philosophical question best answered at the legislature.

    Some states hold that landowners own the animals, most states do not.
     

    IndyDave1776

    Grandmaster
    Emeritus
    Rating - 100%
    12   0   0
    Jan 12, 2012
    27,286
    113
    A philosophical question best answered at the legislature.

    Some states hold that landowners own the animals, most states do not.

    Perhaps so, but it defies my understanding that any reasonable argument can be made for the notion of claiming ownership while disowning responsibility aside from 'we're the government and we can do whatever we want'.
     

    Kirk Freeman

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    9   0   0
    Mar 9, 2008
    48,064
    113
    Lafayette, Indiana
    but it defies my understanding that any reasonable argument can be made for the notion of claiming ownership while disowning responsibility aside from 'we're the government and we can do whatever we want'.

    You are referencing sovereign immunity? *Pssst, it is part of the Constitution* (I know the Constitution is hated by L. Neil Smith and the INGOtarians but state sovereign immunity is part of the Constitution).

    Another enormous philosophical question best addressed at the legislature.
     
    Top Bottom