You characterize my viewpoint as utter nonsense, and liken it to nanny-state liberalism? You liken pulling a weed to tying a rope around an animal’s neck and watching it struggle and drown?
Shame on you. Conservative hunters have nothing but disgust and derision for people who share your viewpoint who would take a bad shot at an animal, wounding it and causing it to suffer needlessly.
By your viewpoint, it would be just fine to skin the animal alive, cut off all of its legs and let it take a half hour to die because it is just an animal with no “rights”.
You talk about “rights” and “the law”, which this has NOTHING to do with. The point is plain and simple, cruelty and the obverse, simple decency.
Just because one enjoys eating venison doesn’t mean one can or should butcher the animal while it is still living and breathing so they can get the freshest cut of meat, but in your narrow viewpoint, because they are dumb animals, that would be perfectly fine.
I am a conservative hunter, and I have disdain for people who take a bad shot at animals. But I don’t think the animal should be given rights, or that the human should be criminally prosecuted for such an action. Animals are animals, and people are people, only one has rights. These are God given rights, but protected under the law. Animals should not have these rights, because the progressive left will twist them for their own agenda as they have with every other “feel good” law on the books. If people want to shame that person, or deny them housing, or boycott their business, I’m all for it— but you don’t need to change the status of animals from property to legal personhood. And like it or not your position is exactly like that of nanny-state liberals; they push for laws based on emotion without thinking through the unintended consequences of such laws or the legal precedents they will set.