Doc

No question .... Cuomo is target number one. But unfortunately as long as the rest of them feel they can freely thumb their noses at gun owners, they will always be able to find another leader. But you are right, as long as we are into sending messages, the most powerful message will come from the removal of Cuomo.

I have laid out a plan that has the best chance of working in terms of putting legislators back in their proper place relative to gun issues. The message being sent to them when they see a significant percentage of those that voted for the safe act missing from their ranks would restore the respect for gun owners into their daily thoughts. It can work. Do I have faith that a significant percentage of gun owners are going to study voting records, and policy statements? .... Not on your life. But I do know that I can hand people a list of those who voted for that safe act and persuade them to vote for the opponent of any one of those names that they see on the ballot. I have been doing that ever since I obtained the list. Voters are an apathetic bunch (gun owners are no exception), and anyone planning on leading an activity to unite them had better keep things simple.

I think the easiest way to think about it all is to think of which way is the most likely to succeed ..... have gun owners go down a single "yea or nay" voting list of one piece of legislation and vote accordingly or .... ask them to spend hours studying the voting records and post-Safe Act comments and activities of each candidate. Which do you think has the best chance of actually happening and coming out with a unified result? One direction sends a message that an anti-gun vote will be punished. The other guarantees that a large percentage of the gun owners will simply opt-out, or reach different conclusions based on their attempted research, both resulting in a diffused vote. Don't over-think the possibilities and don't over estimate the amount of time that gun owners are willing to put into this. Again, the K.I.S.S. principle is the most appropriate way to go. Go for a clear message being sent, and there will be no need to worry about where they stand on the gun issue. With politicians, votes trump principle. Threaten their re-election, and their views on guns go right out the window. Conversely, dissolve our unity with "over-thinking", and the whole election is lost and the message that gets sent for the future is that the gun lobby is dead.

You are not understanding the intent. I know it is impossible to only elect pro gun rights people. Hell, we all know that. But I do know how to send a message that we are a mighty political force to be reckoned with. A message that will last for decades to those that would consider voting for gun control legislation. And it is not by each gun owner picking and choosing what issues to base their vote on. Read what I said about the K.I.S.S. principle above. We have to stay united around a single issue, and the Safe Act has caused the gun owning community to rally and unite on that one single issue. Not follow up issues, not even previous or guessed at future voting records and positions. If a good percentage of those who voted for the safe act come up missing at the next term, one god-awful powerful message will have been sent that even those who dodged the bullet won't be able to ignore in the future. The safe act is the one (and only) rallying point that can keep the gun owning voters focused through election day. The anti-gun forces have handed us a powerful election issue if only we can use it in a smart way. Start complicating things and our unity will be lost. That safe act voting record serves as a very simple guideline for an election result that will send the message that it is not a good political move to vote for gun control. We will never have this opportunity again because gun owners have never been so concentrated in their reaction to any piece of legislation before. It truly is now or never.

My intent for this election is to keep the message simple. Not complicated or anything that they can spin in their mind, or anything that needs any long explanation for them to understand. Just a simple litmus test that cannot be confused. Yes or no. Did you vote for the safe act or not. Your career path hangs on that answer. It is the message that's important and it has to be delivered in as basic a way as possible, so that it will be remembered by these candidates and the ones that come after them. It also is a very simple way for gun owners to be united and focused without a whole lot of polarizing fine points that can fracture the voting result. Here is a good time to apply the K.I.S.S. principle to achieve success.

I understand why you would be unhappy with the bird feeder becoming the site of carnage .... lol. It's one thing to recognize that these things happen frequently, naturally and necessarily in nature. It's quite another thing to realize that you are actively baiting in the birds to their demise. Most people don't feed birds for that purpose. But I guess we have to understand that every time we muck around in the affairs of mother nature, there are always unintended consequences. It almost always goes without saying.

I share your disgust, but keep your eye on the prize. This is the year to send the message that if you voted for the Safe Act we're voting against you. If you voted against it we are rewarding you with our vote. The Safe Act has to become our litmus test this year while we still have many of the gun owners irate enough to act in unison. It is a "now or never" election. If could turn out that you have to hold your nose and vote for an idiot just because he did not support the Safe Act. But for this year only, the message has to be sent that a vote for these kinds of gun laws is dangerous to your political career. If we pull it off in any significant fashion at all, the message will stay in place for quite a few years. If we don't ....... well I think you can guess the consequences. By the way, access the "Lest We Forget" thread pinned at the top of this sub-forum to see exactly who voted for or against the Safe Act.

While this guy's quote was not stated as clearly as it should have (And perhaps the reporter was lifting things without supplying context), the focus of the legal action is reflected in this part of what he said: "South Dakota Attorney General Marty Jackley said semi-automatic guns are among the “arms” protected by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, so the New York ban is unconstitutional." The safe act does talk about so-called "assault rifles" being semi-automatic. This guy is simply pointing out that even semi-automatic rifles are protected by the 2nd Amendment. All the talk of hunting is simply mentioning one common application for these kinds of rifles. I didn't interpret that as meaning that hunting was the only purpose of them. In terms of where this action will lead, I doubt anyone here is qualified to have a credible opinion on that.

What? Someone with the gall to investigate the king? How dare they? I only want to hear good actual results of his removal from office. This scum-bag is slipperier than snot on a door knob. But it is good to know that someone is after him.

An interesting new avenue of the fight against the NYS Safe Act. http://wivb.com/2014/05/07/south-dakota-ag-challenges-new-york-gun-ban/ ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PIERRE, S.D. (AP) — A New York state ban on semi-automatic weapons sets a worrying precedent that could affect the rights of South Dakotans and people across the country to use such weapons in hunting, the South Dakota Attorney General said in a court filing. South Dakota joined 21 states in supporting a court challenge to New York’s ban on semi-automatic weapons. South Dakota Attorney General Marty Jackley said semi-automatic guns are among the “arms” protected by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, so the New York ban is unconstitutional. “Hunting with semi-automatic firearms for pheasant, waterfowl and big game is commonplace in South Dakota,” Jackley said in a statement. “While the ban only applies to New York at this time, the federal court’s upholding of the gun ban sets a concerning precedent interpreting limitations on Second Amendment rights of all law-abiding citizens including here in South Dakota.” A federal judge in December allowed most of New York’s new gun control law to stand, rejecting arguments that its bans on large-capacity magazines and the sale of popular semi-automatic rifles violates gun rights. Judge William Skretny in Buffalo, New York, argued that those provisions in the law are constitutional because they’re related to achieving an “important governmental interest” in public safety. The law was adopted following the shooting at a Newtown, Connecticut elementary school in late 2012. The New York affiliate of the National Rifle Association, sportsmen’s groups, firearms businesses and gun owners filed the suit. The “friend of the court” brief signed by the 22 states was filed in the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals based in New York. ___ The case is Nojay v. Cuomo.

That was the essence of my post earlier. Because we are focused on guns here in this forum, we begin to believe that gun rights are some kind of flashpoint that will spark revolt or mass outrage across the entire population when gun rights are attacked. But the reality is that we are tolerated or at best, ignored by the bulk of the people. Our only hope is that we represent a unified, and dedicated, impassioned minority that can vote as a unit where the rest are fractured by indifference and concerns relating to other scattered issues. Really as just a little dash of reality, we have to understand our position and the only realistic option that we have available to us.

It occurs to me that we as avid gun owners, hunters, etc. do have a sort of tunnel vision. We see guns as tools of our lives and activities, and most of us have been involved with guns in one fashion or another for most of our lives. Therefore, we are very passionate about the 2nd Amendment. But we have to realize that the only thoughts that most people have about guns are the constant negative bombardment of news articles. There are all kinds of things that people are super-passionate about that don't even register on my "list of issues". So, if you do a "man in the street" interview, I am not really surprised that a lot of people are totally confused about the issue. That doesn't mean that they are idiots or anything else. No one is completely educated about every issue even though some pretend to be. I am not too certain that we will have success trying to incite people about the safe act that don't even have a gun or any interest in guns. We will be doing good if we can just get our own people to the polls. I think we would all be surprised at how many avid shooters, hunters, and gun enthusiasts are not even registered to vote. That's a situation we can do something about, and should be busily working on right now.

Why would anyone really be surprised? I'm expecting it. The groundwork is in place.

Old news. We had public water come into a small part of town. If the line ran past your house, you were required to pay a very exorbitant fee, and an annual fee whether you chose to tap into the system or not. Costs from the water line to the house was at the Owner's expense. No choice on any of that. Refuse and it will be added to your tax bill. A bunch of for sale signs went up because the fees were more than some people could afford. That basically is the government taking over your water rights.

The best bear set-up that I have ever seen was in PA in the corner of a small corn field that was surrounded by woods. If you could ever find that kind of set-up in NYS that would be a gold mine. There was a huge area right in the corner of the field that was just completely flattened with bear scat all over the place. There was a heavy trail leading from the woods out into that part of the field. Just a perfect situation. This is a pretty rare thing but it does show that under the right conditions, some deer hunting tactics can be used. By the way, While deer hunting one year, one of our bowhunting group set up a stand down in that corner and did see a bear using that trail during daylight.

I can see where this long distance target shooting could be a lot of fun. Not a skill that I would use while hunting, but just watching that arrow going down-range is a blast. On the NFAA ranges that I used to shoot, there was an 80 yard walk-up that was my absolute favorite shot. Big fun with a 50# recurve. I used to have a prism sight-pin because with my anchor and that bow, the target at 80 yards was behind my fist so I couldn't see it without the prism. I am wondering how these guys are even seeing those balloons at those distances. I see they need a spotting scope to see where the arrows are hitting.

237 yards? ...... why not get serious and go for the 1 mile mark .... lol.

So, does anyone actually pluck the feathers and roast it like a conventional Thanksgiving turkey, or isn't it done that way?

Man! The critters sure do like that spot. It doesn't look like a spot that has big enough trees for a tree stand. Great spot for a pop-up ground blind.

That last picture really has me confused. It could be a deer on it's hind legs as was mentioned, or it could be a sasquatch. Walking in that bent over fashion, and those long arms, and that ape-shaped head, I'm pretty sure it is a Bigfoot. By the way anybody spot the deer in the back at the left? That's probably what he's after.

It doesn't look like horse-stink bothers the deer very much.

Looks like a spot that ought to have a treestand in it.

So, the object is to shoot the oldest bird in the woods? Is that because older is perceived as wiser and more of a challenge?

I honestly hope the DEC knows what it is doing. This is the first time I have ever heard of tackling the problem of an invasive species by putting full protection on them. It sounds a bit bold to me, and certainly counter-intuitive. On the other hand, if the DEC finds that they don't have the resources or the knowhow to handle eradication by themselves, and the population explodes, they will look like the world's biggest dummys for not having taken the route of using the willing army of hunters to help solve the problem. I know the theory of what they are trying to do. The idea is to not disperse populations because of hunter pressure. I understand all that. But the fact is that now that they have chosen this unorthodox way of doing business, they damned-well better be right, and they damned-well better be up to the task.

How far out there are you ready to let the government extend its power and control over your personal lives in the name of Homeland Security? It seems that every time I hear that term Homeland Security, it relates to some new power of surveillance or detention, or changes to justice guarantees, or other shortcut around the Constitution that never existed before. Did 911 actually permanently change our system of government? I am very happy that no significant terrorist successes have occurred on our soil since the implementation of homeland security policies, but it does occasionally cause me to wonder "at what cost". I'll be honest when I say that I have not really developed any firm conclusions on all of this because I can see a need for some pretty sophisticated abilities to short-circuit terrorists attempts (foreign or domestic). But I am still aware of that quote from Ben Franklin that seems to be aimed right at todays situations and circumstances, "They who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety". So what do you all think? Where do we draw the lines, and exactly who is really watchdogging and evaluating how far these rules are stretched and bent? It sure seems that the courts are not getting very involved in a lot of these rules changes that come to us cloaked under the term "Homeland Security". Is all this stuff a problem or not? Lol .... Yes I know I am opening the door to the ranting of all the conspiracy theorists on the forum, but I do believe that there are some radical changes that perhaps need a bit of airing. Perhaps there is some middle ground between the Rambo-style mentality of let's tear it all down and the hell with the consequences vs. the Pollyanna, utopian views that see everything in this country as being just great.