Let's take your thought to its logical conclusion:
I support freedom of religion, but only for the lawful citizenry.
I support freedom of the press, but only for the lawful citizenry.
I support the right of peaceful assembly, but only for the lawful citizenry.
I support the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances, but only for the lawful citizenry.
I support the right to to be secure in one's person, house, papers, and effects, and to not be subject to unreasonable searches and seizures, but only for the lawful citizenry.
I support the prohibition on double jeopardy, but only for the lawful citizenry.
I support the prohibition on self-incrimination, but only for the lawful citizenry.
I support the right to a speedy and public trial, but only for the lawful citizenry.
I support the right to confront one's accusers, but only for the lawful citizenry.
I support the right to counsel, but only for the lawful citizenry.
I support the right to trial by jury, but only for the lawful citizenry.
I support the prohibition of excessive bail, but only for the lawful citizenry.
I support the prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment, but only for the lawful citizenry.
You just don't get it.
You allow the government to turn one inalienable right into a privilege and the rest will soon follow.
No, sir, you don't. Any right may be deprived by due process of law. This imbecile had three convictions; he had his days in court; and he is suffering the consequences of beinf unable to live in civilized society.
If he really wanted to be able to hunt, he could have made better choices. Too damn bad for him.