You guys sure give a lot of credit to a guy who, while in his 40's, still listens to KISS.

Guys in their 40's are the only people who still listen to KISS.

Can't confirm, I walked into a girl's relatives house the other day who is around 30 and he had KISS posters up, a whole wall dedicated to memorabilia, and was introduced as being "really into KISS." This was a great confirmation, letting me know I couldn't take his musical opinion on anything seriously, and that more than likely, any of his decisions are immediately suspect.

What's a 40 year old supposed to listen to in your opinion?

The devils circus

Fuuuuuck yeeeah

Burt Bacharach and Prairie Home Companion

no, that's 50 year olds

[deleted]

I would call KISS the "Def Leppard of the 70s" but that would be a huge slam on Def Leppard.

I like to think of them as the TBTBT of the 70s.

4 hours of live radio. Laugh at the jokes and enjoy life. People take this show waaaay to seriously.

Fuckin A. Get a hobby.

Lots of in depth analysis around here about a show that is usually themed around dick jokes and homeless people pooping on stuff.

Keep up the good work everyone, you're doing great.

yeah guys i said the same thing when i first started listening, and coming on to a subreddit to tell us we're losers because we are commenting on a show we like isnt any better.

we listen to the show everyday, why cant we be critical? WE'RE NOT SHEEP MAAAAAAANNNNNNN!!

no but seriously i love jim but he has done a major heel turn the past year, he's not an advocate for the most stupid shit (redskins, hunters), he needs to lighten up he's been more annoying than ants rants, at least he has some knowledge on it.

I've been listening to them for over 15 years. Sometimes there's things you aren't going to agree with but in the end it's a silly comedy show. You can be critical of the show all you want I guess, just seems like a waste of time being overly critical of 3 guys talking about dicks and poop.

I don't know why you got negged. I feel the same way. I don't agree with them sometimes, but I really don't flip out about it at all. I just ignore it and move on, or I just turn the show off for the day.

I don't know why you got negged.

I have no doubt it was for a very good reason

Exactly. Why can't we just sit down and enjoy the show instead of complaining all the time?

I rarely have an issue with anything Jim says, as his opinions seem to be very well-rounded and intellectual.

[deleted]

[deleted]

For someone who constantly complains about the guilty white media, he sure did play the part this morning.

Lately Jimmy has been trying to hard to seem like an intellectual and he's not. This is why I love having Colin in studio because he immediately shits on Jim when he puts his stupid finger up to his chin and tries to pontificate as if he did graduate high school.

He does try to sound like an intellectual but in what way does that pertain to this conversation? Saying he doesnt like big game hunting and people who pay 350K to kill an endangered Rhino? Thats trying to sound intellectual? Thats an emotional conversation. Not intellectual.

Apparently someone expressing their negative opinion of big game hunting is considered high brow conversation around here. You need to have a degree in huntology before you can talk about it.

Get that book learnin fancy talk out of here.

I'm speaking more in a general sense about his trite points like Indian logos and how America is a shit country because people had slaves hundreds of years ago. I agree with him on a lot of stuff I just think at times he tries to hard to appear thought provoking.

Oh so you were just talking about something completely unrelated. Gotcha.

Not necessarily you smug cunt.

I hate to say it, but this what makes me turn off the radio. Did you hear him talk last week about how North Korea's leader isn't "that bad?" Seriously? What a fucking dolt.

I'm pretty sure he never said that

which day was that? so I can go back and listen. I must have missed it.

Against the Grain Jim

He's the against the grain KEEEEID

[deleted]

I still don't get how it's considered a "sport". It's not as though the hunted is on equal footing with the hunter. The lion or bear doesnt even know it's participating in a competition, it's just loafing around the fucking woods. Where's the risk involved? You're in jeeps, have high caliber rifles and fire from a distance. wtf. At least have some balls and do as a Masai warrior does and stroll right up to the fucking lion. I do agree with Jim when he claims that a big game hunter just wants the thrill of killing something more beautiful than themselves or to brighten their little lives by participating in faux risky situations; I wish they'd just admit it.

Sometimes they play Jim's clip of him rambling against fishing when they come back from commercial break. It gives me a good chuckle.

Not this shit again. Carlin talked about this in the 80's, Patrice talked about this on the show, and someone JUST posted a clip of Jimmy talking about hunting/sports on the show. We get it.

i'll proselytize where ever and whenever i want

Clearly. Take it up with golfers in a corporate setting, though. That's where it's the worst. Nothing like an out of shape 60 year old man "teaching you a lesson" in golf. My guess is that the poor souls on here need proselytizing in the opposite direction, and need things like 30 mins. of daily walking as a sport.

Jimmy's points can only be taken so far, dude couldn't even handle his alcohol/drug use and became a weird sex guy. He's funny but I can't take people with zero self control seriously. It's harder to moderate your drug use then have to just quit altogether.

Jim is still a hypocrite. In other news, water is still fucking wet.

Rags on the liberal media, then pulls this nonsense. Stick to fucking trannies and making fun of retarded people, Jim. It is the only thing you are good at.

"Here's the thing Jim. If you attribute a group of people's actions (in this case, big game hunters) as either Evil or Stupid, chances are you're the ignorant one. This is the same trap political hacks fall in to. " -Umm, I'd disagree, Nazi's were evil and they're/were a group of people who's actions were evil... I could name other groups (cough..Westboro Baptist Church) but you get the point.

"Simply because you can't understand someone's motivations, doesn't mean they deserve to die" -Again... disagree, I don't need to understand someone who seeks to murder others in cold blood, and some people think rare/smart animals deserve better than being shot in the face by a so-called thrill seeker...

if you assume cold blood, you assume to understand some aspect of their motive.

He's said the same thing about people who take their kids to circuses because of the treatment of animals at circuses in the 1800s.

He's just deep down inside a tranny animal lover. He wants to get fucked by an elephant with fake tits.

There is no justification to killing a black rhino that a reasonable and prudent person can agree with

It raised 350K to save black rhino's, the rhino that is going to be hunted is not able to reproduce and is very old. 350K should go a long way in preserving the rest

is not able to reproduce and is very old

And might be preventing fertile Rhinos from producing offspring, due to aggression, etc.

They are preserving the black rhinos from what?

Extinction

What would make the black rhino extinct?

Asians believe their horns are cures for shit, get on google. Help yourself

So if they want to save the rhinos, why do they need an american to fly over an shoot an old rhino? lets face it, the hunter want to kill something exotic.

Right... It's a win win. He isn't going to pay 350K to kill a fucking pigeon

Illegal hunting, inability to locate someone to bang if I had to guess

That's not funny! Only an ignorant smug douche would claim that some species "serve no purpose". Please educate yourself. All animals have an integral part in the ecosystem that they live in.

What the hell are you talking about? First of all, ecosystem is by definition a "a biological community of interacting organisms and their physical environment." Secondly, the giant panda is endangered not because it can't compete in it's ecosystem but because the particular ecosystem is dissappearing due to human overpopulation. And then there is poaching too. Third, I was not being serious.

You're saying the the value of an old rhino's life is worth $350k. How does one arrive at the amount? It's arbitrary and backed by nothing. Who are we to say what rhinos need on an emotion, physical and social level. Should we do this to old people? The EPA currently values a human life at $7.9 million (I would assume it would be less for an old dying person). Every year a nursing home or several get to choose its oldest, sickest resident without and the highest bidder gets to hunt them. It's fine because that money will be used to give the residents a better life and it can't be proved that anyone loved or needed that human in anyway.

Rhinos don't have an out of control population like deer. There's no justification outside of human greed for this one

If the human race was dying off and someone wanted to donate 7.9 million to save the ones that can reproduce and save the population, I'd let them take out a lonely grandpa. Definitely

fair enough

I had no idea the EPA values a human life. It's kinda interesting. Thanks for the TIL

Just like Deer, Rhino population needs to be managed.

Deer we need less, so the managers offer more tags to hunt them.

Rhinos still need to be managed, and when they determined that this particular Rhino was sterile, and needed to be managed, they issued a tag for it.

From the management's perspective, they are "farming" the herds...old, unproductive animals are culled for the benefit of overall health of the herd. Unproductive animals cost resources, and if they aren't benefitting the herd, then they get culled.

Please know I'm just trying to be helpful, showing you the different point of view...and not asking you to like it or agree with it. Its a tough sell from any angle.

exactly. conserving, not preserving. It's still only being done because there is a value that humans have placed on it. Perhaps, to the rhino population, it's important that old males become ornery and not allow younger males to breed. We haven't been studying them that long. We;ve only done what we believe to be in the rhinos best interest according to our agenda.

The Rhinos have a value already (be it horn-dick-medicine, or hunting permit cost) - whether we want them to be valueless so they are left alone or not.

IMO (and my opinion only) - I feel that paticular Rhino's death is better served in a controlled manner, with the proceeds going to their conservation and protection for the future...than of old age, or worse yet: being poached into dick-medicine because no funding was available to pay game wardens protect them from poachers.

Not cool either way...but in reality, we play the game of lesser evils.

Well, thanks - but I'm not really arguing though....and I chose to answer a heavily downvoted comment in an effort to bring some understanding to what they did.

killing stuff is never easy, and a really good example of this is when the Klicher family has to put down the cow that is hurting the Calfs (on Alaska the Last Frontier).

The owner was broken up over it, but in the end, he had to do what was best for his farm.

The benefit: his family got food, and a potentially dangerous animal can't hurt his other animals anymore.

In the case of the Rhino: the management got 350K for conservation purposes for doing the same thing a conservation manager would have had to do anyway, and a sterile Rhino wont be mating with fertile females, preventing fertile males from impregnating female rhinos.

Edit: added the benefits

The $350k to hunt rhinos is not arbitrary and backed by nothing. It's based on the supply of rhinos, and a combination of opportunity costs from pricing it too high and simply waiting, versus the price people are willing to pay to hunt one. It's naturally imperfect, but I guarantee you it's not completely arbitrary.

And the fact that you don't differentiate between a human life and another animal's life, and yet you live in our society, is disturbing.

There is no justification to killing a black rhino that a reasonable and prudent person can agree with

Sure there is, squidboy: Money to fund taking care of the remaining herd. If the hunt is controlled (and the existence of a permit demonstrates that it is) then the herd won't be hunted to extinction. Everything has to die eventually; that rhino could die tomorrow of natural causes and it would be a %100 loss. If it is hunted then the permit money will go toward supporting the rest of the herd. That rhino is taking one for the team.

In the US hunters are some of the most active conservationists. The fees and taxes they pay in order to hunt contributes more to conservation efforts than any other group. And that's not even including the projects that they fund privately, such as buying wild land and developing it to enhance the environment (increasing food and water supplies while at the same time preventing destruction of the land via commercial/industrial development).

How much money has Norton himself donated to fund protecting black rhinos? If he hasn't donated any money then the hunter who buys that permit has been more helpful to the herd overall than Norton has. Indeed, Norton is only enriching himself by using this topic to make "good radio."

Proceeds of hunting permits and tags fund the lion's share of conservation efforts.

That includes funding the preserves that the animals live on, and the game wardens that protect the animals from poaching.

So if I understand, they fly across the ocean to kil rhinos, but its to protect them?

That's the net effect.

I asked a question. They kill the old rhinos so that the rhinos dont go extinct?

If the old rhinos who can't make new rhinos are killing the young rhinos that make new rhinos, then yes.

Do you believe that if they didnt shoot old rhinos, they would go extinct? Come on son.

Maybe, maybe not, but if there's one that's hurting the herd, why not take it out.

One guy shooting one rhino isn't the problem. The problem is poachers illegally hunting them for their horns. A problem that can be addressed by having game wardens, which can be paid for by donations like the one given to kill one asshole rhino that's going out of his way to hurt the herd.

There is a giant difference between conservation and preservation

There is a giant difference between conservation and preservation

What kind of an idiotic response is that?

One that's created by someone who doesn't bother to read or attempt to understand what was posted.

Seriously? John Muir? The Sierra Club? Gifford Pinchot? US Forrest Service? How about the Wilderness Act of 1964?

Let me quote it: "A wilderness, in contrast with those areas where man and his own works dominate the landscape, is hereby recognized as an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain. An area of wilderness is further defined to mean in this Act an area of undeveloped Federal land retaining its primeval character and influence, without permanent improvements or human habitation, which is protected and managed so as to preserve its natural conditions and which (1) generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of man’s work substantially unnoticeable; (2) has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined."

Basically you know nothing about the concept of various environmental ethics nor current environmental law which has been influenced by them.

Oh I see, so you've ignored all of what I wrote in order to try to shift the argument from managing game populations and habitat to maintaining pristine tracts of wilderness in an attempt to dismiss hunters as being irresponsible and destructive.

Do you want some vasoline for that straw man you're trying to fuck?

you're right. what could managing game populations and pristine tracts of wilderness possibly have anything to do with one another? What was I thinking?!

The two are tangentially related, but the discussion was about the ethics of someone killing a black rhino, not the absolutist ideal of keeping wild land pristine. Hence you are going off on a tangent to a topic you think you can successfully argue about after realizing that you can't successfully argue the original topic.

I suppose technically you're not invoking a "straw man" but rather "moving the goal posts."

They are directly related. You can't have one without the other. Ecology.

Here's your original comment again:

There is no justification to killing a black rhino that a reasonable and prudent person can agree with

That is what I was arguing with. Where did you mention anything about keeping land pristine?

Give it up, stinky. You're going off on tangents and you know it. If I let you get away with that the next thing you'll bring up is renewable energy versus fossil fuels and how that sullies pristine wilderness.

While you have justified it, I still don't believe it to be reasonable.

Also, yes, R&D $ should be getting pumped into renewable resources. What's going on in WV now is all too reminiscent of the Buffalo Creek disaster in the '72. "It's safe." "You have nothing to worry about." "Well it's not our fault."

While you have justified it, I still don't believe it to be reasonable.

I justified it using logic and reasoning, therefor it is reasonable. You're the kind of person who goes through life "feeling" things rather than thinking about them. You don't like the idea of someone killing something, and rather than thinking it out and realizing that it ultimately helps the herd, which is the goal, you just stop at the feeling of dislike and claim that to be "reasonable." That's childish and unreasonable.

Also, yes, R&D $ should be getting pumped into renewable resources.

Oh shut up.

Quite the opposite. Fact only, sir. I don't believe that this money for conservation of the herd is any different from money raise by the nfl for breast cancer. So the rhinos get 8%? Believing this is actually helping is getting the wool pulled over your eyes

That being said, the concept of "International Law" is an unenforceable farce and therefore nothing said here can legally apply to international rhinos

More proof that you've gone off on a tangent.

The specific one they've raffled the hunt for is old, far too territorial, and is not contributing to any breeding - it's actually keeping the young male rhinos from breeding. So, what now, son?

again, that's humans putting a value on the rhino in saying that the old rhino preventing younger rhinos from breeding should be put down. How do we know the way a rhino population should regulate itself. We would not do the same to a human.

it's an endangered species. I personally think they should be left alone, but the protection group did this for a reason and at the end of the day, neither you nor I are in charge of them.

[deleted]

[deleted]

Not for idiots like you.

and you're an idiot too

They can definitely justify it but there's something borderline psychotic about a person who would pay $350k to kill something just because he wants to be able to say that he killed it.

The argument against killing it was very weak, though.

Ecological preservation comes to mind along with maintaining biodiversity. Give me any argument FOR killing it that's not backed by an anthropocentric ideology. There's not even any legitimate scientific research or knowledge that can come out of its death.

The thing was old, sterile, and hostile to breeding males. It was dead either way. This way, the cash goes toward management and preservation.

If it was old, it posed no threat to breeding male.

You're a rhino expert now?

explain to me how an old male is a threat to an in his prime rhino.

The rhinos being in their prime for breeding and in their prime of being the alpha male are two different things.

Aggression.

Except that it was territorial and killing younger males. So yeah, it did pose a threat to fertile males.

Old doesn't mean invalid and weak. It was a grumpy old limp dick fuck that drove off breeding males and had the potential to kill offspring of other males. He was a detriment to the existing population. He has to be culled to maintain what is left.

Let's leave Ant out of this.

"Ecological preservation comes to mind along with maintaining biodiversity." Followed by "Give me any argument FOR killing it that's not backed by an anthropocentric ideology."

You understand that you gave an anthropocentric ideology as your reason for not killing it right? Name a non-human species that considers ecological preservation and biodiversity in its decision making.

Wildlife conservation doesn't just mean don't let any animals get killed. My buddy works for wildlife and fisheries in my state. They set limits on animals so that they don't get hunted to extinction, but they also lower limits so that more of that animal gets killed when there's too many of them.

In the case of the black rhino that was auctioned to be hunted, look at it like this:

You have an ornery old rhino that's not reproducing (so it's not helping create more black rhinos) and that's killing off younger rhinos that are able to produce (so it's hurting the black rhino population by stopping new rhinos from being born.)

The most logical solution is to take that rhino out of the mix, and since there's no such thing as rhino prison, the only other way would be to kill it.

So now you've come to the conclusion to kill it. You can either spend a bunch of money tracking it, killing it, and disposing of it, which takes money away from the conservation efforts you do, or you can get some rich white guy to pay thousands of dollars to come do the job for you. The rhino gets taken out, some white guy has a bunch of rhino meat and a trophy, and you now have thousands of dollars to help conserve and boost the black rhino population.

you are arguying for sake of arguying here, it's a completely useless exercise in existance.

You're a fucking moron

A lot of the arguments against big game hunting here seems to be coming from a place miscommunication or lack of knowledge on both parties.

The current situation for endangered animals in Africa come from illegal poaching. Illegal poaching happens because many people (various asian/african cultures) believe that certain animal parts have mystic healing properties and/or provide some sort of luck. I am a Chinese American so I know for sure that the older generation and many of the uneducated young definitely do still believe in this nonsense.

The wealthy Chinese, of which there are many, are willing to pay top dollar for horns, phalluses, gallbladders, teeth, etc. for shamanistic/traditional medicinal purposes. Now, given the current state of many African countries in which living conditions are harsh and food/living supplies are difficult to acquire due to poverty, many poachers choose their line of work because the alternative is a starving village and family.

To people who have no alternatives of making money and supporting themselves, hunting an endangered animal for a lot of money is of course extremely attractive. Once again, having to choose between watching your child live destitute and hungry or to kill a big animal for some distant Chinese guy, I think many of you here regardless of your feelings on the issue would choose to kill the animal even if you feel guilty.

The reason why a North American paying 350k to hunt the bison is great is because suddenly, a bison is worth 350k. The difference is, the Chinese don't particularly care if the bison go extinct. They do not want to kill the bison themselves and only want to pay for the illegally harvested parts.

In contrast, North American hunters DO want to kill the animal themselves, be it for the thrill or not. This critical difference means that there is now value for the locals to keep the animals from going extinct so that the white man can continue paying large sums of money to kill the animals in person. This cannot work if the animals are too scarce and/or are extinct.

Now I agree that there is something off about anyone wanting to pay large sums of money to kill an animal, but the reality of the situation is, the alternative to North American style Big Game Hunting and regulation, is the unregulated parts harvesting of the rich Chinese who care little about species extinction. Honestly, if Panda tourism didn't make so much money, they'd already be extinct from having their gallbladders taken for medicine (as the Chinese do with tigers and brown bears).

In an ideal world, I would prefer that no one be hunting them, but sadly that will never be a possibility until Africa's economy improves to the point where parts of the population no longer need to choose between poverty or selling off endangered animal parts to either wealthy American hunters or superstitious Chinese consumers.

Sorry for ranting.

Why not just go to a meeting, dude? Just hit up your local AA and give it a shot - what's the worst thing that can happen?

Is this wackbag? Am I on wackbag?

I think this is the opposite end of the spectrum.

As much as I love a sound shitting on Jimmy I have to say the first thing he said this morning was just completely fucking spot on. Jennifer Lawrence did not deserve that award, Lupita McGillicuddy from 12 Years a Slave did.

do you need to understand the motivation of a pedophile to judge their actions? sometimes the answer is clear, it's what I like to call common sense and no I am not comparing the two, but what is there to research about big game hunting..

that's just it, it's obvious why they do it, there is no need to research this, it's cut & dry. For some it's justifiable, for others not so much.

This is the most stupid thing ever. Jimmy doesn't like the idea of someone paying money to shoot an endangered rhino, so what?

"Ignorant on the issue". It's a fucking entertainment radio show. "Deserve to die". You're not really supposed to take comics every word literally. "tedious listen". I really enjoyed the whole segment. It was a nice conversation and I thought jimmy was hilarious.

Guy has an opinion, you tune in to listen to a guy who you know will give his opinion, you get mad at the opinion the guy has. If you don't like it don't listen.

They're starting to sound like Grandma Stern with all this preachy animal rights bullshit.

[deleted]

It is a radio show, with a drop out, someone who thought he was a model and did a bit of studying and a comedian.

FUCK YOUR ANALYSIS...MAAAAAAAAAAN.

[deleted]

i don't care if every endangered rhino's horns are turned into ash trays, or if they live peacefully, doing rhino shit, hunter's are still faggots.

As opposed to everyone else who has their cattle fed into a slaughtering machine in a factory. That's the manly American way!

yes.

just heard jims opinion on 12 years of slave, he makes no sense then when he gets called out he goes "no but you know what im mean"

when did he stop being so funny? it seems he gets more and more bitter and angry everyday.

Hey, don't be so tough on my Fezzie. He is going through some rough times.... oh, wait... wrong reddit. My bad.

I can't wait until O&A start saying, "What's bugging you, buddy? Rough night?" To be answered with dead air and a blank stare.

Jimmy said that woman who hunted the animal should die. He probably thinks anyone who hunts animals for sport should die.

But I bet he wouldn't dare to say that to Brock Lesnar, who hunts

I can't listen today, did he go off on hunting or something again? I wish he would just pose naked for PETA already, his future shit and this are fucking tedious.

I'm not a hunter, but as long as the populations are tracked and maintained, who gives a fuck if old lions get blown away? They drag down the herd and get sick. It's not Lion King, baby boy.

Then let them drag down the pride (not herd, idiot). Why do we need to intervene at all? So someone can have a lion's head on their wall? Fuck your thrill. How do we know that a sick old lion is not intrinsically valuable to the pride in one way or another.

Also, The second amendment is not designed to allow people to hunt. It's specifically there to allow US citizens to keep their government in check with the constant reminder that it can be overthrown by use of force.

I don't care about speculating about whether or not a lion is valuable even if it's sick or old. People pay money that goes towards preservation and the meat often gets donated. Let the kids skip a few lion meat meals and the reservations not get any of that sweet hunting money then. It's all okay as long as you can keep your self-righteousness, huh?

Where does it say "hunting" in the second amendment? How can you say what the amendment is about if all it says is "shall not be infringed"?

I don't think there are too many places where Black Rhinos run free that are under the US constitution.

If they did they would be bought and sold decades ago realistically speaking and the others would just be made illegal to hunt. Ironically, these African countries might keep their endangered species safer by having specific reservations instead of just making them illegal to hunt like the U.S. does with most endangered species.. But those nations have their own rights, and if they feel that they can afford a few members of a small population a year for tens of thousands of dollars of hunting tourism and foreigners staying in their country spending even more money on food, transportation, safety like guides/security, that's their right.

EDIT: I added a little more and cleaned up spelling.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state..."

The citizens are the militia. Where does it say that the citizens can't hunt?

It doesn't say that one can or cannot hunt. Hunting is not discussed at all and is therefore not a "right" given by the amendment. The right granted is for citizen ownership of firearms for the use of securing a free state.

Here, let's examine the text:

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

What about this makes you think you have a right to hunt? The one activity they discuss clearly has absolutely nothing to do with hunting.

If it is not said specifically in the Constitution, it is an implied right. It is a short document.

It can not be banned, but there can be regulations. Just like how you have a background check on guns, you are free to exercise that right within the law. Just because it doesn't say hunting does not mean it isn't under the umbrella of the Constitution. And that's not even considering individual states with hunting listed as right in their own state constitutions like Kentucky.

It absolutely can be banned. Federal trumps state - unless it's weed related, then fock it and get zoomed or sumpthin'

People don't really like it when states' rights get overturned. If there ever was a ban it would be heavily contested.

Like segregation? The fact that the events of June 11, 1963 (the "Stand in the Schoolhouse Door") had to take place is proof that people don't know what's good for them.

Hunting is not comparable to segregation. For one, segregation is unconstitutional (no matter how much Anthony wishes otherwise) and hunting is an implied right.

Second:

...is proof that people don't know what's good for them.

I'm guessing you're a big fan of government legislating lives, so I think we're done here.

It is when we're talking about state v. federal rights. Segregation works as a wonderful example to prove my point.

That being said, while I do agree that the right move was made that day in history, I absolutely hate the racket the government is running on us. Obscene, over the top, all encompassing legislation needs to stop.

I just fucking said that, dumbass

As opposed to....

Jimmy is turning into what he despises and seems to be doing it as quickly as he can.

Wonder what % of the loot actually goes in to conservation and protection of animals....1...2% maybe.

Go suck your cock if you think these hunters are contributing to the preservation of wildlife.Most cash comes from fundraising by whitey animal lovers and various environmental groups you stupid cunts.

Fuck

Well, with those solid stats you present, who could argue? Dummy.

if you need stats to show that hunters aren't the ones that are preserving the wildlife of the planet,then you are a fuckin idiot.

idiot.

Actually, you are the fucking idiot... and proving it as well.

i think you will find that shooters pay a tax to hunt in the same way as a bird watcher pays a tax to use national parks to watch birds.how much of this tax is used to preserve the environment is anyone's guess.

But yeah,a dumb cunt would say that shooters are environmentalists.

What are you talking about? Large portions of sales of licenses and ammunition are used directly for conservation efforts. It's been shown that hunters by far contribute more to conservation than non-hunters. It doesn't take a genius to figure out why. Who cares more about the number of game animals in the wild, some guy bleeding heart animal lover who lives in the city and never goes into the wild or a hunter who is out there multiple times during the year and whose hobby depends entirely on the health of the wildlife?

Hunters in the US contribute over $1.6 billion annually to conservation efforts. Do you really think animal rights people like PETA are giving anywhere near that?

source: http://www.nssf.org/PDF/research/HuntingInAmerica_EconomicForceForConservation.pdf

So yes, I need stats to show that animal lovers and environmental groups in the US are contributing more. Take your time, it might be hard to find something that doesn't exist.

report by National Shooting Sports Foundation,don't care

Uh oh, OP is a hunter!!
As they always say on the show, the closer something is to somebody, the less funny the jokes are.

Us non hunters found the bit funny. You sound like a butthurt crybaby.

I don't hunt and I agree with OP. It's like when you hear people bashing NASCAR or wrestling - I don't like either, but the bashing is almost always boring, uninteresting and predictable.

Ecological preservation comes to mind along with maintaining biodiversity. Give me any argument FOR killing it that's not backed by an anthropocentric ideology. There's not even any legitimate scientific research or knowledge that can come out of its death.

report by National Shooting Sports Foundation,don't care

i think you will find that shooters pay a tax to hunt in the same way as a bird watcher pays a tax to use national parks to watch birds.how much of this tax is used to preserve the environment is anyone's guess.

But yeah,a dumb cunt would say that shooters are environmentalists.

yes.