Doc

Well, at least your deer know where they are supposed to be hanging out. I have 11 deer of all sizes chonking on grass in my front lawn. They have been showing up at all times of day and night for the last few weeks. If the house windows were a little lower, they could stand outside watching TV with me.

Meanwhile, we are all hiding out in the woods, 72' in the air in our treestands, with our jillion dollar scent-lock super camo suits all paranoid about wind direction and all doused up with stinky ol' doe pee, playing a tune on our favorite grunt tube and never get to see even one of these guys.....lol.

Can you imagine Cuomo standing on one of the NY city back streets with his collar pulled up and his hat pulled down, buying guns for his bodyguards out of the back of a panel truck. That would make a great editorial page newspaper cartoon .... lol.

I think the thing that bothers me most is that some guys will search the internet until they find some printed matter that seems to support their position. And then they come on here waving their arms in the air proclaiming they have found "proof" that their position is valid. I'm simply pointing out that such a tactic is not necessarily valid nor credible nor is there anything showing that the results are indeed worth the paper they are written on. But yet we are supposed to say, "Well that's it. If you found it on the net it must be true". We all know that if it is found on the net it has to be true .... right? I'm sorry if I don't simply buy everything that is peddled on the net. I'm just a bit more skeptical than that, especially when it comes to politically sensitive topics.

I'm sure ....lol. Look I'm not dismissing any study. I only caution you and others about taking these, or any study as gospel. There are people out there that have vested interests in making the results match the pre-determined theory. Also, when it comes to highly emotional, incendiary political topics, there are plenty of people with deep pockets that are interested in influencing or financing studies that are designed to back their particular political needs. Anyone who doesn't acknowledge that is really quite naive. So when someone trots out a study that supposedly is intended to end all discussion, I simply say, hold on a minute, I can find any article on the internet to uphold my particular viewpoint on any subject. That does not mean that they are all on the up-and-up. This one does have some suspicious research constructions and inclusions.

Well I think religion is a lot more personal than politics. So the only reason that I can see for attacking someones religion is some kind of desire to launch a personal attack. Why would anyone want to do that as an out-of-the-blue random act of maliciousness. It doesn't make any sense to me. And also, what others believe in when it comes to religion has absolutely no effect on me (with the possible exception of extreme Islamic variations which really are more political than religious). Political stupidity on the other hand, does have a direct effect on me and my way of life. With this latest gun law fiasco as an example.

It's not just the heat ....... How about the spikey-fanged, slithering things. You know those creepy critters that don't even have the decency to get up and walk at you. I don't want anything to do with those. I don't even like the non-lethal ones that we have around here. Now, if somebody invents a pair of snake-bite boots that zip up over the top of your head, maybe I would consider walking around in the tall grass down there, enjoying hunting all those pigs and stuff.

I have no axe to grind with anyone's opinion on religion. I only wonder what it is that makes some feel threatened by it or inclined to attack it. I always have to ask why some feel required to attack the beliefs of others. What is the kick they get out of it? I'll probably never figure that out.

Actually in answer to the topic title, they have the right to try. It is up to the courts and voters to straighten them out.

So is the argument that compounds, recurves and longbows are inadequate deer hunting weapons and should be removed from the list of deer harvesting weapons because some bowhunters do not practice adequately? Let's take this line of argument to it's final conclusion which would be bow hunting season should be that eliminated in favor of the more efficient gun season. I have tried to stay out of this argument because it is basically rehashing the same points over and over, but this statement really looks like a frontal attack on bowhunting. If we want to favor only those weapons that are easy to use and require little or no practice, then basically that is a recommendation to eliminate all bows in favor of guns and crossbows. Actually, I have heard that argument put forth by many gun hunters, and left unchallenged is a notion that could eventually get some traction.

Virgil- I don't know whether it escaped your notice or not, but 4 of the 5 resources that you linked were simply partnering onto the studies done by this Al Kellermann. So in your attempt to show a huge number of studies done by 5 different researchers, you failed to point out that every one of these so-called studies were done by the same lead researcher. Yes I will say that someone who seems to have specialized in anti-gun studies certainly does raise credibility concerns. This guy apparently makes his living from trying to arrive at a predetermined bias. I will say that his studies may be on the up and up, but I wouldn't base my entire opinion based on one guy who appears to have an axe to grind. Ever hear the phrase, "figures don't lie, but liars figure"? I am not saying that this is the case here, but the anti-gun lobby has deep pockets and certainly can afford the best anti-gun studies that money can buy. So, I am not about to recommend that people dispose of their weapons in their homes based on these studies. Also, any study that includes suicide and accidents, fails to account for the fact that those intent on committing suicide do not require a gun to do so, and there is no evidence given that the gun in the home was the cause of the suicide or that it wouldn't have happened by other means if the gun was not present. I see the inclusions of suicides just an irrelevant attempt at inflating the body count to match the desired outcome. And if we are going to add in accidents, we also have to admit that accidents by firearms are insignificant in number compared with other forms of accidents. Maybe what the author has successfully proven is that the home can be a dangerous place....lol. I think I could have guessed that without this guy Kellermann sucking up all that research money. Seriously, if the purpose of your linking these supposed stats was to show that people should pitch their home defense weapons, I'm afraid you failed.

Well, let's face it. When laws are determined on the appearance of the products, then something has really gone screwy in this country. Obviously there is no point trying to find a firearm that will win a political popularity contest. When they are all done with the spooky-looking guns, they'll be coming after the rest ..... one at a time. And there will be plenty of people that just sit back and shrug their shoulders and say ..... "oh well", just like they do with the banning of modern sporting rifles. Human nature never does seem to improve.

Well, I don't own any of the modern sporting arms and definitely am not much of an authority on them, but I believe that the designs popped out into the civilian world because of modularity and the ability to customize and service them applies to hunting needs. And by the way, there are many guns that had their origins and/or their features coming from the military. I don't see any reason to argue against a firearm based on the features that have their basis in military design. That would include just about any firearm. Perhaps that is the next criterion that the anti-gunners will use ..... any gun that has any feature that was ever found in a military weapon. That ought to just about cover the rest of them .... eh?

I don't know about boogeymen, I haven't thought about such things since I was a very small child. Are you still plagued by such things? ....... oh that's too bad. Well anyway, maybe someday you too will learn how to identify idealogies when you see them. All it takes is just paying attention a little bit. Try it.

Yeah, I always figure that need is based on a situation you may not yet have encountered. Possibly the lady with her kids crouched behind her in the dark may have a different view on what is needed when she is looking across the room at an approaching pair of armed intruders. But there are people intent on depriving her of the means to stay alive and keep her kids alive by determining that she will legally be kept under gunned and inadequately protected. All well intentioned people, but obsessed by the idea that they know better what is good for the law abiding citizens and what it is that they need.

Ha-ha .... Bush a conservative? ..... Yeah, like Pataki was a Conservative. The best I can say for either one is that they were moderates. A politician can be classified by the sum total of his politics. Bush never measured up as a conservative or even right of center. I will admit that Obama may have actually had a temporary conservative idea sometime during his life. But if he did, he never made it public. That is a man that is left of those candidates registered as socialists. That is not exaggeration.

I get a little nervous whenever people think they should decide for me what I need. I really don't understand what this tunnel vision is on hunting as being the only measure of what a law abiding person should be allowed to own. The 2nd Amendment never mentioned hunting as a criteria, so what is with all these people that want to use hunting as a yardstick of what firearms should be allowed. Believe it or not, there really are other reasons to own a firearm. Those that are somehow soothed because a firearm has been banned based on its "looks" had better give their head a shake if they can't seem to see the bigger picture.

When the Nazis came for the communists, I remained silent; I was not a communist. When they locked up the social democrats, I remained silent; I was not a social democrat. When they came for the trade unionists, I did not speak out; I was not a trade unionist. When they came for the Jews, I remained silent; I wasn't a Jew. When they came for me, there was no one left to speak out. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No, it may not be directly related as a historical quote, but it does convey the idea of those who base their life decisions only on what effects them directly. I suppose that is enough said about that.

Are you really equating those mini-issues with statements that as long as I can squeak through my own lifetime, the hell with those that come after us? Or attitudes of, "as long as I can appease the anti-gunners long enough to get through my life, who cares about future generations". That is unbelieveable that anyone would come out and say things like that. And even more unbelievable that anyone would compare that attitude to a bunch of game management decisions. People arguing about antler restrictions, youth hunts, crossbows, etc. are not talking about incrementally giving away the rights of the future generations. My God, where is your sense of proportion? My only hope is that such scrambled thinking is in the minority among gun owners or our society may have degenerated a whole lot farther than I ever thought.

Kind of says it all doesn't it? ......

View this video. If you have any interest in seeing a living example of where all this anti-gun nonsense leads ..... View this video. If you think the solution is as simple as disobeying any requirement of registration .... View this video. If you think that confiscation involves actual door to door searches to be effective ...... View this video. We have a real-time laboratory right to our north that has already gone through a lot of what so many think is a simple problem that can be solved by legal disobedience. They have already found the ways that simple gun banning of certain firearms can so easily be expanded to other guns by the ruling "agency". They have found out what happens to those that refuse to comply. So, throw out all the cartoonish macho crap about ignoring laws. Pull your head out of that dark, unsanitary body orifice. Never mind pretending that such things can never happen and ........VIEW THE DAMNED VIDEO!

Wow! Do you have any idea of how incredibly selfish all that sounds? My gosh ..... people never cease to amaze me.

Ha-ha .... So anyone breaking in there that doesn't belong there has pretty much stepped into a hornet's nest .... lol.

I am confused ... You have no equipment, but you are offering to plant corn for someone else? .... But on your land. Something else to consider .... 7 acres of one crop may be a bit overdone. You might consider breaking it up into smaller plots and putting in a variety of crops to spread the useful time-span and a balance of nutrition through more seasons of use.

Yes, these answers do take on a different tone as people get older. As you get into the later years of life, family becomes even more important. Nobody wants to die alone. Also, your choices in terms of a need to be somewhere near civilization change with age and growing medical needs and attention. I would love to dig my way back into one of the western isolated valleys and just spend my remaining days soaking up the beauty and peaceful existance. However, that just simply is not ever going to happen. Advancing age changes everything.