URGENT NJ ALERT: Call/Write Gov. Christie to Veto Draconian Ivory Ban Bill TODAY!

Wow. I'm disgusted by just how many enemies there are on these forums. Friendly my ***, this place is full of nothing but liberally minded "ban everything" types of people. You should all be ashamed of yourselves for supporting such an approach.

If you support this then you have no right to be objected when the police come busting down doors to confiscate antique pianos, billiard tables and family heirloom knives.
 
Charlie_K said:
Wow. I'm disgusted by just how many enemies there are on these forums. Friendly my ***, this place is full of nothing but liberally minded "ban everything" types of people. You should all be ashamed of yourselves for supporting such an approach.

If you support this then you have no right to be objected when the police come busting down doors to confiscate antique pianos, billiard tables and family heirloom knives.
Click to expand...

Personally it's still the absolute friendliest place on the net for me.

People who disagree with a position I may take are not automatically my enemy.. In fact I try to first give benefit of doubt and assume they have their own well-read, logical reasons for being opposite me. Weirdly, most of my friends take most positions opposite mine... Just how it all worked out... we get along. Just my two cents.
 
Without a total ban — or meaningful enforcement — we are going to CONTINUE to be part of the problem.


From this report:
http://e360.yale.edu/mobile/feature.msp?id=2738


Yet amid all the media coverage, little attention has been paid to the U.S.’s own trade in legal and illegal ivory, which experts say, trails only the very largest Asian markets. It’s legal to sell African elephant ivory imported before 1989 and Asian elephant ivory removed from the wild before 1976 within the U.S., and illegal sales regularly occur under cover of the legal market – a ton of illegal ivory was seized in a single raid on New York stores in 2011. Ivory in the U.S. is largely unmonitored, and the laws regulating it are antiquated, confusing, and shot through with loopholes. In addition, the agencies tasked with enforcing these laws are underfunded and chronically short-staffed.


The fact that pre-ban and antique ivory is legally sold, generally without certification, presents a serious problem for law enforcement. Even with high-tech tools, there’s often no way to tell pre-ban from post-ban ivory, or a real antique from a new piece of ivory that’s been distressed or discolored to look like an antique. Authorities can find it impossible to tell African elephant ivory from Asian elephant ivory, which is regulated under different laws, or from any number of other ivory-like substances: mammoth ivory, hippo teeth, walrus teeth, warthog tusks, and so on. Many times the only means of identifying specific types of ivory is via expensive, destructive lab tests, says Grace.

As a law enforcement agent going into a store, he says, "if you ask how old the ivory is, the first thing you’re going to get is it’s either a hundred years old or it’s pre-ban – and a lot of times that’s based on nothing.
 
killgar said:
Do ya ever feel like you're banging your head against a wall Bigfatts? A lot of people are "headline thinkers", they don't read, or think, beyond the headlines. Many people never bother to read the fine print, nor do they care what it might say, or what rights it might take away from them, or how many innocent people might go to prison as a result.

I don't want a single elephant to be killed for it's ivory. I also don't want to see some law-abiding knife owner/maker be sent to prison because he owns a knife with a handle made from 10,000 year old fossilized mammoth ivory. A law that makes no distinction between poached ivory, and fossilized ivory that came from an animal that died long before man walked upright, is a bad law that should be fought.
Click to expand...

It amuses the absolute ish out of me that you're in here judging the hell out of people who don't agree with your view, while in the other thread, you're claiming anyone who read that redneck Worldstar fight with the cops and believed it are just judgemental people who aren't seeing both sides.

The exceptional irony of this gives me a warm and fuzzy.:thumbup:
 
Quiet said:
It amuses the absolute ish out of me that you're in here judging the hell out of people who don't agree with your view, while in the other thread, you're claiming anyone who read that redneck Worldstar fight with the cops and believed it are just judgemental people who aren't seeing both sides.

The exceptional irony of this gives me a warm and fuzzy.:thumbup:
Click to expand...

Not to be super contrary or anything, since I would consider us buds, but... isn't he advocating essentially the same thing in both places? I.e. don't just read the headlines/one side of the story and believe it? Mind you, I could be very confused on the whole issue. It happens a lot.

Not saying it isn't somewhat judgmental but it seems to be at least consistently judgmental. ;)
 
RedLynx said:
Not to be super contrary or anything, since I would consider us buds, but... isn't he advocating essentially the same thing in both places? I.e. don't just read the headlines/one side of the story and believe it? Mind you, I could be very confused on the whole issue. It happens a lot.
Click to expand...

Here, he's essentially referring to a bunch of people he doesn't know, as not being informed about the issues, simply because they don't believe as he does. That's pretty friggin' judgemental, if you ask me. So, it cracks me up that he's doing the high horse act in the other thread, over a bunch of hicks that flipped out and jumped some cops because they didn't want to walk their knives back to their car.

Also, that whole "Well you clearly just don't understand the subject that well" inference is usually a passive aggressive way of saying "You don't agree with me, so you're wrong." It's a pretty standard and played out tactic, actually.

Edit: Also, understand. I had no problem with Killgar until he decided to ride in on his high road horse in the other thread. And yes, we're buds (even if I AM a jerk from time to time).
 
Personally I have no problem with strengthening the restrictions on elephant ivory, pre ban legal or otherwise. My gripes with this sort of legislation is that it negates the substitutes used to keep from using elephant ivory. Ivory like substances are not ivory. They should not be legislated as such. And anybody worth their salt can tell the difference between elephant ivory and the common substitutes. Have you ever seen Warthog and Hippo tusk side by side with elephant ivory? I have. Not that hard to make a distinction. As for ancient ivory, I imagine someone could distress new elephant ivory to resemble ancient mammoth, I don't know what would be involved in that. But the possibility that someone could do something is no basis for a blanket ban of this sort. And history has shown us how well blanket bans and 0 tolerance works.

And just a little clarification on my stance. I do not support any kind of elephant ivory trade and do not own anything made with elephant ivory. Nor do I plan to- although I wouldn't pass up a classic European rifle because it had an ivory bead or inlay. But I would like to someday own a WH or something along those lines with some mammoth bark.
 
Quiet said:
Here, he's essentially referring to a bunch of people he doesn't know, as not being informed about the issues, simply because they don't believe as he does. That's pretty friggin' judgemental, if you ask me. So, it cracks me up that he's doing the high horse act in the other thread, over a bunch of hicks that flipped out and jumped some cops because they didn't want to walk their knives back to their car.

Also, that whole "Well you clearly just don't understand the subject that well" inference is usually a passive aggressive way of saying "You don't agree with me, so you're wrong." It's a pretty standard and played out tactic, actually.

Edit: Also, understand. I had no problem with Killgar until he decided to ride in on his high road horse in the other thread. And yes, we're buds (even if I AM a jerk from time to time).
Click to expand...

Thanks mate, appreciate the clarification. Ordinarily I am a "get the whole story" sort of guy but, as far as the other thread goes, it seems they did jump some cops so... that doesn't really help their image. I understand the media spins stuff, but not all the time. I'm already paranoid, I wouldn't leave my apartment if I got too deep into everything the media does. ;)
 
Critter said:
...
Or, how about a dose of simple economics and common sense: When the black market price of raw ivory in China exceeds $1500 per pound (per numerous reports) and the price for perfectly legal and readily available decades-old ivory in the U.S. is $250 per pound, why would criminals run the risk of trying to bring illegal ivory into the U.S., with its internationally recognized effective customs enforcement, when they can sell it in China for six times the U.S. price with extremely lax to non-existent customs enforcement. Beyond that, with readily available legal ivory in the U.S. at reasonable prices, there simply is no reason anyone in the U.S. needs to turn to the black market. There are tons of legal ivory available today in the U.S. to anyone who wants to use if for knife handles, gun grips, artwork or whatever, there's no need to smuggle in illegal ivory.
Click to expand...


Or how about opening your eyes:


Two defendants pleaded guilty in Manhattan Thursday to selling and offering for sale a ton of ivory items worth more than $2 million harvested from endangered and threatened elephants , one of the largest seizures in New York history and a sign that the trade in endangered animals still thrives despite the best efforts of conservationists and law enforcement.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/ton-illegal-ivory-seized-york/story?id=16762421



A massive stockpile of elephant ivory was crushed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on Thursday as part of an escalating push to stamp out illegal wildlife trafficking around the world.


The destruction of more than six tons of seized tusks and carvings at the Rocky Mountain Arsenal National Wildlife Refuge outside of Denver was meant to draw attention to a global poaching crisis, driven by organized crime syndicates, that has decimated the population of African elephants.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/other/u...send-message-poachers-traffickers-f2D11594098



Between 2009 and 2012, US border agents seized 1,165 pieces of ivory, probably 10 percent to total illegal trade in US.

In one bust in 2011, a ton of illegal ivory was seized in Philadelphia.

http://www.ifaw.org/sites/default/files/ifaw-illegal-ivory-infographic.pdf
 
Quiet said:
It amuses the absolute ish out of me that you're in here judging the hell out of people who don't agree with your view, while in the other thread, you're claiming anyone who read that redneck Worldstar fight with the cops and believed it are just judgemental people who aren't seeing both sides.

The exceptional irony of this gives me a warm and fuzzy.:thumbup:
Click to expand...
So let me see if I've got this straight. You stopped posting in that other thread, after I asked you to provide evidence of your assertions and you couldn't. So you choose to bring the argument from that thread into this one. What "amuses" me is that you claimed in that other thread that you don't come here to argue, but here you are, not only arguing with what I have posted in this thread, but arguing with what I posted in an entirely different thread. And that "fuzzy" feeling you have, that's not "irony", it's confusion, because you clearly don't know what the word "judgmental" means.

But I will educate you - It is indeed a FACT that many people in this world don't think or read beyond the headlines when forming their opinions. Pointing out a FACT is not the same as passing judgement. Now if I said that people are stupid or ignorant because they don't agree with me, THAT would be passing judgement. But that isn't what I said.

By the way, what is YOUR opinion on the topic of THIS thread (the ivory law)? Because you never did say. And that is the main topic of THIS thread. I gave my opinion of the ivory law, but I didn't see yours anywhere. Or did you come here solely for the purpose of arguing with me?

Now I suppose you will look for a THIRD thread in which to carry on this argument. I guess you have nothing better to do either.
 
Last edited:
RedLynx said:
Not to be super contrary or anything, since I would consider us buds, but... isn't he advocating essentially the same thing in both places? I.e. don't just read the headlines/one side of the story and believe it? Mind you, I could be very confused on the whole issue. It happens a lot.
Click to expand...
Actually, you are dead on correct. That is exactly what I have been saying. Apparently it was clear to you.

Not saying it isn't somewhat judgmental but it seems to be at least consistently judgmental. ;)
Click to expand...
Perhaps you can explain to me how I am being judgmental by pointing out a common practice in this world. Namely, forming opinions based on only headlines or one side of the story. Is it judgmental to point out that many people do something that many people actually do?

By the way Redlynx, if you need clarification on anything I say on this forum, you should ask me. Because neither Quiet, nor anyone else, is in any position to explain my way of thinking, or my point of view :).
 
Charlie_K said:
By stop being stupid.
Click to expand...
Can I ask you to follow your own advice here, and possibly not be insulting? It isn't helping matters at all. Or is it?

Charlie_K said:
Wow. I'm disgusted by just how many enemies there are on these forums. Friendly my ***, this place is full of nothing but liberally minded "ban everything" types of people. You should all be ashamed of yourselves for supporting such an approach.

If you support this then you have no right to be objected when the police come busting down doors to confiscate antique pianos, billiard tables and family heirloom knives.
Click to expand...
A little melodramatic in your response don't you think? If you can't handle the topic, or if the replies (which obviously differ from your own deeply embedded personal and political beliefs) offend you, find a less abrasive way to present your own beliefs and positions. I mean, it's only a suggestion on my part. No need to get them in a wad. If all else fails I can offer an alternative suggestion, but not in this forum unfortunately. I'd get to writing as your observations on this forum are not as astute as you'd like to believe.
 
I find this to be a typical, heavy handed, knee-jerk type reaction to problem not nearly as widespread as the "other side" would like us to believe it is. Much like the Washington Redskins "Earth shattering, world-ending" catastrophe. You can't stop a problem at the source, so you go to the group who is easiest to spotlight and most likely to succumb to pressure and "do the right thing". You don't have the stomach to do what it would take to stop the poachers on front end, so lets blame some schmuck in Iowa for saving up and buying a knife with ivory that will be around long after all the elephants are gone anyway. They screw up the raising of an entire generation of kids who won't leave home, won't leave school, cna't get a job and, a scary percentage of whom, decide to go out and start shooting people in schools or theaters, so let's punish the same poor slob in Iowa for owning a Remington 870 shotgun or a Glock 19. The agenda is the same every time.
 
Since the Obama administration is pushing for a federal ban on all ivory transfers, I think whatever appeals are made to Christie are wasted words.

I would state my opinion but, as always, it doesn't matter when those in power control the outcome.
 
Government didn't raise those kids. Blame the parents.

Stopping poaching at the front end would involve unprecedented use of armed force in a foreign country. Since that worked out so well last time we did it, I'm surprised anyone would think it's still a good idea. Unless we leave an occupying force for perpetuity, the poachers will return as soon as our troops leave. Frankly, economic sanctions work better in many cases than military control anymore.

While I've never supported the use of ivory for anything, the proposed bans clearly seem to be a political ploy rather than a workable solution to a significant problem. But justifying the use of ivory because it will be around long after the elephants are extinct only proves the point of those seeking a ban.
 
killgar said:
So let me see if I've got this straight. You stopped posting in that other thread, after I asked you to provide evidence of your assertions and you couldn't. So you choose to bring the argument from that thread into this one. What "amuses" me is that you claimed in that other thread that you don't come here to argue, but here you are, not only arguing with what I have posted in this thread, but arguing with what I posted in an entirely different thread. And that "fuzzy" feeling you have, that's not "irony", it's confusion, because you clearly don't know what the word "judgmental" means.

But I will educate you - It is indeed a FACT that many people in this world don't think or read beyond the headlines when forming their opinions. Pointing out a FACT is not the same as passing judgement. Now if I said that people are stupid or ignorant because they don't agree with me, THAT would be passing judgement. But that isn't what I said.

By the way, what is YOUR opinion on the topic of THIS thread (the ivory law)? Because you never did say. And that is the main topic of THIS thread. I gave my opinion of the ivory law, but I didn't see yours anywhere. Or did you come here solely for the purpose of arguing with me?

Now I suppose you will look for a THIRD thread in which to carry on this argument. I guess you have nothing better to do either.
Click to expand...

Here's a suggestion: check the post timestamps. :)

Additionally, my own view is that this law will be like most of the others laws on the books: not helping anything or anyone. I also don't think that any politician is going to listen to what we have to say.
 
Last edited:
You stop or slow down the taking of elephants for ivory by rigorous law enforcement. The USA is not the problem and it never has been. The legal taking of elephants by hunters is a good business for the countries that have a native elephant population.

I am and continue to be admantly opposed to an ivory ban of any sort in the US.

A ban in the US will only make things worse in terms of the poaching of elephants for their ivory. The price will increase and the attraction to have ivory will increase.
 
Last edited:
killgar said:
Where did I call anyone an "idiot". Did I say anything in post #7 that is inaccurate? Do you deny that there are a lot of people in this world who only read the headlines, form their opinions based on those headlines, and don't bother to read any deeper?
Click to expand...

You didn't use the word idiot, I was summing up your post. ;)
 
Meh. The law seems overbroad in not excepting mammoth ivory (since they aren't currently being hunted), but I guess I understand the rationale: how easily can you tell mammoth ivory from fake mammoth ivory from real ivory? But since no one will be breaking down the doors of any citizens not dealing in illegal ivory (possession for the sake of possession of existing ivory products is still ok) and since a ban on trafficking is a step in the right direction, I'm fine with the law. If the U.S. is going to provide any kind of moral example to the rest of the world (I'm looking at you China), it's a necessary step. It's a sign of the times that a reasonable -- even if overbroad -- law like this one is taken as though it were the Intolerable Acts returned from 1774.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top