Doc

Yes, if only people would always do what must be done to coexist with each other, rules, regulations and laws would be unnecessary. It would be a great world, and I'm sure we could find some real useful productive work for all those judges and lawyers and cops to actually do. But unhappily, it turns out that we do need a legal system. And if we need laws, they should probably be written in such a way that lawyers can't twist them around to nail us when we don't deserve nailing. It would also be nice if they were written so that those of us that have to live under them actually could find them and understand them. Put everything pertaining to an illegal act in one law. That's all I am saying. I am not advocating writing laws that aren't necessary, but once it has been determined that a law is necessary, consolidate all aspects and descriptions of that criminal act into one law and don't put pieces of it here and other pieces of it there. That is not a recommendation to make it easier to enforce. That is a recommendation to make it easier to abide by making enforcement unnecessary. If I want to make it illegal to shoot closer than a certain distance to a house and also control what is in the line of fire, the new law should simply say that. I should not put part of that in conservation law books and put the other half in penal code law books. In my muddled up mind, that seems to make some sense to me.

Lol....

Our turkeys are still sitting around trying to figure out what that last snow storm was all about ... lol.

I never pay a lot of attention to trail cam anomalies. I have seen so many weird defects in trail cam pictures that I am sure mean absolutely nothing. I get all kinds of internal optical reflections and crazy bug patterns, bird fly-bys, and all kinds of stuff. On the other hand UFO does stand for unidentified flying object. So if you see something flying around that you cannot identify, I guess it is a UFO.....lol.

Hell, I don't have any idea what on those things is functional and necessary. I don't even care. My point is that I don't base the safety of a weapon on appearance anymore than when some gal shows up with a pink rifle. That is not a criteria for judging the fitness of a gun and I reject any argument that uses appearance in that way. As far as the DEC and what they want and need for money, keep in mind that they have absolutely no influence on the anti gun crowd or the politicians who really don't care what they ban as long as its a gun. Anyone who takes comfort in hunting as a reason why any gun won't be banned, needs a dose of reality. Those who wish to ban guns have absolutely no concern what the use of the gun is. And it wouldn't surprise me a bit if it turned out that most anti gun folks are also anti hunters as well. Don't ever feel real comfy because you think there is something sacred about hunting firearms.

I think I have found some pictures of them: http://images.search.yahoo.com/search/images;_ylt=A0LEVyvpP0FTvgIA4nJXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTB0ZG44cmVwBHNlYwNzYwRjb2xvA2JmMQR2dGlkA1ZJUDMwNF8x?_adv_prop=image&fr=mcafee&va=do+do+bird

Hey, you may very well be right. But if we sit back on the couch and don't try, I guess we know for sure how that will come out. I would rather have tried and lost than sit around and wonder what might have been if we had just got off our rumps and tried to do something about it. I really don't give up very easily and have to actually lose before I give up (and sometimes not even then ......lol). At the very least, I really don't see any percentages in trying to talk others out of putting up a good effort and nothing is really gained by trying to discourage those who do want to fight. I never have seen where that does me or anyone else (other than the antis) any good.

Those piles are still there, but they're going. Things should be in pretty good shape over in Canadice as long as you don't go up too high. I'll be taking a hike up our hill to see what things are like up there, later today. Canadice should be very similar. Looking across the valley here in Bristol, it looks like the top of the far hill is getting real patchy. We may have finally turned the corner. I hope so.

Ha-ha .... plan ahead. Where I am piling up that snow is a good 20' away from the driveway. The only problem that causes is that I will have to rake up all those stones from the gravel, off the yard.....lol. As you can see, I am able to do something that even the big boys with their pick-up trucks can't do. I am actually driving up the snow bank (very carefully) and pushing snow up and over. Another advantage that I have over the pick-up trucks is that down below along the straight section of the driveway, I can actually plow wider than the driveway by driving on top of the snow. Trucks would sink down in and slide down into the ditches if they tried that. So I can actually plow back farther that the trucks.

Here's the problem with that line of reasoning. When gun owners start to accept subjective reasons for banning weapons (such as "gee, they look dangerous"), it is only a matter of time before any of our weapons can be deemed "dangerous looking" and be banned. Frankly that style of gun does not appeal to me either, but that really is irrelevant and certainly should not be allowed into the arguments of gun banning criteria. The anti forces must not be allowed to dictate what we buy based on appearance. And we must not be falling for that either.

Ha-ha .... I thought it had something to do with quadrunners. So it is a 6' platform that I assume you can mount a pop-up ground blind on. Sounds kind of neat. Get a look over the brush a bit without being seen. Looks like you got a heck of a deal!

I guess it all depends on how well you like being blind-sided by a law that was written poorly or incompletely. Do you doubt for one minute that you break laws everyday because you don't understand them, they are buried in the unending text of multiple volumes of law books, or are simply left up to the interpretation of judges and lawyers. Do you really think that is fair to those of us that try to abide by the law? Have you seen the pages of confusion and misunderstanding every time we have a discussion on conservation laws here. I can't for the life of me imagine why anyone would be in favor of any confusion being purposely added to the laws that we are supposed to live under. Apparently some of you think that confusion and vagueness somehow protects you. I'm afraid that is exactly the opposite case. Remember the saying, ignorance of the law is no excuse. It kind of sets you up when the laws are written such that you have no choice but to be ignorant of them.

This last snow storm that we had produced about a foot of the heaviest, wettest, sloppy-gloppy, snow that I have ever encountered. Other than having some problems with the plow shedding the snow, the Yamaha didn't even grunt. That's with no chains, and 9 year old tires. What a beast!

That is kind of where gun control has headed. The failed attempts at logic have now been replaced by appearance and emotional visual effects. Our laws and freedoms are now dictated by how people "feel" about the way guns look. Isn't that nice and fuzzy ..... lol. Function be damned, let's create laws based on how "nasty" a gun looks. I believe that a lot of that emotional crap is gradually being accepted by a lot of gun owners as well.

Quad Pod???? What's that?

Well, we already know of one post on this forum where apparently the shooter was doing exactly that. How many other ones happen without incident? How many others result in mishaps that we no one will admit to? That's why I am saying that the law should simply be finished off with "rest of the story". Why not. There are still a lot of people who regard bows as mere "toys" and will often use them accordingly.

I don't know, that draw length sure does look a whole lot longer. It looks like he almost gets a corner of the mouth anchor out of that, which I have never seen on a horizontal version. It's hard to tell from the shot angles of this video, but there was another picture on another thread that showed a side view. Basically, it looks like it gets as much draw as a regular vertical bow.

Most likely you will see a dramatic re-distribution of gun hunters now entering bow season in large numbers, and the crossbow proponents pointing at the swelling numbers in bow season and saying, "see .... see .... look at all the hunters we have added". I am all ready to be listening to that......lol.

One thing that kind of stands out when I look at this thing is that this configuration of crossbow gets a lot longer draw length and potential deflection of the limbs than any of the horizontal versions. What that does is extend the useful power stroke of each limb, storing a lot more energy. That is another way to get more total thrust out of the same weight limbs.

The DEC firearm discharge setback law is a definition and safeguard relating to the legal way that a firearm (or bow) should be used around occupied structures. There is nothing that precludes the DEC version of setback from including prohibited items in the line of fire as well. That additional aspect of firearms usage should not be left up to interpretation or judgment or after the fact arbitration. And that is what I am proposing. Also, remember that there are other people that absolutely must understand these laws in their entirety beside LEOs and prosecutors and judges. Scattering their definitions all through several sets of law books definitely is not serving the public that must live under these laws. Particularly when it is unnecessary. Can there be additional levels of severity that might be added by NYS penal laws? .... Absolutely that sort of thing is done all the time. Perhaps the argument could be made that firearms discharge laws are not an Environmental Conservation Law issue at all, but if that is where the law winds up residing, then the law should be complete, and it is my opinion that elements in the line of fire should fall into that same law just the same as the distance from those elements.

Leaving the nails not fully nailed down is essential on trees that are still growing. Otherwise the nails will be pulled right through the sign and the backer board as the diameter of the tree increases. I've had that happen. The most durable way to only have to do this job once, is to use a plywood backer board (pressure treated plywood would be ideal). Nail the sign securely to the board with galvanized shingle nails. Never mind that the points of the nails stick out the back of the board. Then nail the sign/board assembly to mature trees along your property line with 3" or longer regular nails leaving about a 1/2" sticking out to allow for tree growth. That is the combination that has left my posted line looking like it had just been put up after all these decades.

No, I understand you perfectly well, and I too am very clear with my rebuttal. I do not like half-laws. I do not like laws that lawyers and judges and cops can twist to their liking. I do not like infractions that are defined by a half dozen other laws. I do not like laws that are not clear and complete to the governed. It really is exactly that simple.

No, it's got nothing to do with numbers. It has to do with attitudes and the fact that if you put a group of gun owners in a room an argument over something will break out inside of 15 minutes. Try to get them to work together to oust a politician, and immediately one of the leaders will stand up and throw the rest of the gun owners and their whole cause under the bus just to make himself look like the rational, mature, and reasoned one. There's something wrong with us folks. I never see any of these antis making public statements that criticize anyone in their organization or membership. Their dirty laundry never gets aired on the streets. They don't get involved in self-aggrandizing moves and public statements that make their membership sound like a bunch of hill-billys. And guess which side of the issue is making all the advances today? I've got to say that I really am not taking this Tom King stuff very well. I'm frustrated and disappointed and really not feeling very optimistic. We have it in our power to impact gun rights issues for decades to come and this is what our leadership pulls just mere months before the elections.

Well, I don't think I have ever met anyone who thought that laws should be constructed to define only parts of the infraction.....lol. Left purposely vague? Left up to the discretion of cops and judges and the imagination of whatever citizens are involved? You believe that statutes should be purposely written in an obtuse fashion with the actual definition left up to a compilation of several obscure laws? Well, I'll just have to totally disagree with that assessment of how our laws should be written. None of it really makes a bit of sense to me. My thoughts are that keeping laws purposely vague is why we break laws every day without ever realizing it. It is also a reason why court time is cluttered sorting out situations that never would have occurred had the law been written in an understandable, complete, and all-inclusive fashion in the first place. If you think that is a good idea, then I will just respectfully disagree with that opinion.

Isn't this all so typical of gun owners and hunters. We never seem to be able to stay glued together long enough to get anything accomplished before somebody needs to have the spotlight by making some outlandish statements and proposals. That's what fills me with frustration and pessimism. Logically, there is no reason why even a minority group of people can't influence elections if they are dedicated and passionate about one particular issue. I mean, we are not really all that small a block of voters when you consider that there are also many other groups that dislike Cuomo for their own reasons. It used to be that politicians would pay great attention to any large block of voters. Now they have learned that other organizations may pose a real threat in elections, but the gun lobby is being exposed as a paper tiger that can never hold themselves together long enough to get the job done.