Doc

Ok, so what exactly does this mean? A county cannot repeal a state law can it? Is this just a position statement, or does the measure have some real meaning?

Oh yeah she was the pastey-faced gal with the gray face and the ribs showing through her sweater.

Lol ..... This subject does indeed drive me crazy. You can see how frustrating some of these situations can get. But I think the post by erussell even outdoes the experiences that I have had. My gosh ..... it's getting pretty bad when you start having motor vehicle accidents in your hunting turf because of excess trespasser traffic ...... lol.

There are a lot of things that get passed off as "science" that definitely need de-bunking. That is where the term "junk science" came from. Biased, contrived, manipulated, studies and experiments can be powerful tools for those subjects that have political outcomes. Heavily funded "scientific" studies funded by those that have a stake in the outcomes come to mind. Our biggest shortfall is in being so intellectually lazy as to simply grab onto whatever version of "science" that suits our purposes and then passing it off as fact. It's a common tactic used with the hope that it will stop opposing arguments in their tracks with it all being posed as irrefutable scientific fact.

Sometimes it goes way beyond just paying for the property and paying taxes. I had a bit of a problem with some horseback riders who apparently felt that private property was a bit like a commune and was maintained for the use of them and their stinking horses. So I found a line of surveyor's tape strung through my property with trails hacked through the brush there, and a heavy pocked trail that would twist the ankle of anyone who tried to walk there. Also my ATV trail up the hill was mangled with horse tracks in the mud and a trail liberally sprinkled with horse manure. I had to back-track the horse trail to locate the free-loaders who thought that I was maintaining that ATV trail for their benefit. And also, it was thrill to have discovered, neighbors with ATV's, and dirt bikes also felt that I shouldn't be too excited by the over-use/erosion of my trails. Apparently they were convinced that I built the trail for them and their friends to tear up as well as hacking new trails throughout the property. And then there was the campsite with the pile of ashes from a campfire that I found one hot dry summer. I mean, you are exactly right, I did scrimp and save for years to be able to buy my property, and I do pay a gob of taxes annually in order to be able to keep that property. I don't see anybody offering to help me out with that, not that I would accept. But there sure is a lot of people who feel that they should have the right to use the property and even screw it up, and endanger it with fire. By the way, is there any amount of insurance that would make up for a burned out chunk of woods and a burned down house if those jerks had had that fire get away from them? Couple all that nonsense with the beer cans and other debris that I have to police up, and while it might seem unreasonable to some, I do get a bit irritated when people start using my land as their own. Oh yeah, and let's not even get into the situations where carefully planned and executed hunts get completely trashed by someone parading past your stand stinking up the area ..... lol. So I really am quite intolerant of all trespassers and really don't accept very many excuses (as in none) when people invade my domain without even an attempt at gaining permission.

Well, other than the "gun-grab" posts, we are in a bit of a slump until some hunting seasons begin. So, a thread that makes it beyond 3 pages is always welcome. Trespassing can be a frustrating experience, and I always like to air it out every so often just to sample attitudes about it. So, thanks for starting the thread.

Actually on my property, I always make sure that at least 3 signs are visible at any time (if you see one you can also see at least two more). That puts them a whole lot closer than 660'. There is no one who can use the excuse that they didn't see a sign. Each sign is a bright yellow colored aluminum with my full name and address on them. Most of the time the trespasser knows full well that he is going onto posted land. Something I encounter every year is hunter tracks in the snow where guys walk along my posted line. There's no doubt in my mind that they are intending to hunt whatever portion of my land that they can see into from the unposted side of the line, and if they get something, will hot-foot it across the line and quick drag it back, gambling on the fact that I likely will not show up during those specific few minutes. Ha-ha ... pretty sneaky, but they know exactly what they're doing. It never works, but they try it anyway. I swear these guys think that deer can read posted signs. Actually what these guys are doing is walking way away from some of the best deer hunting areas to stare a couple hundred yards into my property.....lol.

Yeah, actually I assumed that that was 1/2 of a walkie-talkie set. Maybe there was more than one of these characters trespassing. As far as the strap over his shoulder, yes, that may be a leash, or something else. I have no idea.

WHAT???? Ban 'em!!! Ban the rifles, ban the pellets, Ban the air that's stored in the gun! What does anyone need one of those for? .... Ban 'em. Regulate the magazine to be sure that they can only hold 7 rounds. Register 'em. No, BAN them!

Good point. I wonder if any of these studies even consider the times when a personal defense weapon turns back intruders or others bent on assault, where no shot is even fired by either party or no one is injured. Oh, and by the way, the more mean the weapon looks (nasty looking ol' "assault rifles"), the more likey that that will be the result.

What on earth gave anyone the idea that he is looking for dogs, or coyote hunting, or any other made-up story. The guy is simply disrespecting the landowner by ignoring the signs and helping himself to something that is not his. You want to make up stories? ..... How about the guy just ripped down one of the landowner's signs and cut through a fence and left behind a trail of beer bottles and candy wrappers. How's that for a made-up story. Or how about the guy spotted a huge buck back in there as he was driving the roads the other night and thought he might just ignore the fact that the season is closed and slip in there and try to get him. That's another great story. But most likely the real story is that he simply feels entitled to use anybody else's property and ignore the signs that try to tell him otherwise. Probably is full of envy against the lucky S.O.B. that owns the land. Man, I hate trespassers. They're just a bunch of free-loaders that have absolutely no respect for the property of others. You can try to justify it all you want, but the kind of attitudes that run through the mind of trespassers is exactly the same as anyone else who thinks the world owes them something. Let someone start wandering around his front yard and see how tolerant he is of that little act. No it may not be the most heinous criminal act ever committed, but that doesn't mean that anyone should try to justify it. And it doesn't make the mentality and sense of entitlement that drives that kind of disrespect any easier to take.

I will say that any study that has political under-pinnings had better be scrutinized with a fine-toothed comb (several times). Seriously, one of the most powerful tools in a politians bag of tricks is a well crafted study that your average citizen can neither understand or refute. There is money to be made by researchers that fill that need. And isn't it convenient to have an opinion supposedly converted to political fact. The only way to counteract a well funded and carefully crafted study is by launching your own .... lol. It is designed to keep you on the defensive and have it appear that you have been beaten by science. It's ingenious, and works everytime because as soon as the word "study" has been used, the argument is over and everybody accepts the result as gospel .... right? Well, almost everybody.

It's getting so that you better have your State Senator and Assembly man on speed-dial. We can talk about it here on this forum, but the real people that need to hear our opinions are our representatives..... now!

If you are going to engage in letter writing to the local paper, be sure that you bounce your composition off of somebody that you know expresses themselves well before sending it in. I know that there are some who could do more harm than good. Be sure that your letter will not be judged as sounding too extreme or wacky. Every word that is publicly printed has the ability to convince and gain support, or turn-off and lose support. So use care when constructing letters to the editor. You are representing all of us, or at least that is the way the public will see it.

My thought is that if we ever had to engage in an armed revolt against an oppressive government, we had better hope that some other foriegn entity bankrolls and supplies our effort and provides us with some real weapons. Those deer rifles and shotguns in the cabinet just simply aren't going to hack it.

That's a nice looking camp. What is the deer/turkey/small game population like up there?

Reading these last bunch of replies by Early and some others has just reminded me that when you get into discussions like these people like him don't even read any replies to his messages. I know he is not stupid, and should be fully capable of grasping the simple points that are being made, so I am assuming that he doesn't even read any responses, but simply makes up in his mind what he wishes they had been. He is just another one of these people that likes to make up mythical content to any replies just to have the ability to argue. Yup! that's right another one-man conversation where he makes up the opposing argument and then comments on it. It's kind of silly isn't it? Well, I guess I've wasted about enough time on that kind of foolishness. It all serves no purpose at all?

I realize that, but we had all better get our heads straight on this and figure out exactly who it is that needs opposing. If we are all running around in circles blaming law enforcement instead of the filthy legislators who proposed and voted for this thing, we can all just sit back and watch it all disappear a piece at a time. This is not a time to be wasting emotion and effort on someone who didn't have a single thing to do with the passage of this bill. We had better recognize exactly who it is that needs to be punished for the underhanded and sneaky way that this was passed, and also for the mentality that was shown by those who voted for it. We had better make those people understand that they have awoken a sleeping giant and we had better see to it that they never hold their offices again. At the very least, we had better focus our efforts in those directions instead of flailing around dispersing our wrath on what amounts to basic innocent bystanders.

Well, there you go again. I never called anyone a "neanderthal" or even hinted at that. I love the way you guys re-write my comments just so you can argue with someone. You keep making up these mythical remarks and then arguing with them. It's kind of like a one-man conversation. My opinions on this are rather simple and basic and I have repeated them enough so that anyone who can read should not be finding a need to embellish them. As far as all your questions about cops understanding this law, I'm sorry, but I don't read minds and I don't have any idea whether they understand the law or not and for this conversation, it doesn't even relate to what I was talking about. So I don't know whether you even have a clue what you are talking about, and frankly I don't care. As far as the rest of your questions, you asked the same questions back on page two of this thread and I responded to them already. I am actually getting a bit tired of repeating myself for those that refuse to read my replies or those who for some reason can't comprehend what their reading. Oh, and by the way your notions about having the cops declare the constitutionality of the laws they enforce or decide which laws they should or should not enforce, I think that has been responded to no less than ahalf dozen times. You apparently are not grasping the concept of enforcement vs. law-making. I can't help you out there. With all of my attempts at explaining it, apparently it is still flying over your head. And so I give up. Now as to all your questions about why you are not allowed to own certain weapons, I can only say that I do not know all the reasons why you are not allowed to have the same weapons as the police. Apparently you even think you should be allowed to own an armed drone aircraft, and a rocket launcher, since you actually asked why you can't own them. I'm not sure why you are stopping there? How about a functioning tank or rocket launcher or flame thrower, or your own personal tactical nuke. If you want, go fill up a panel truck with barrels of fertilizer and fuel oil ..... lol. I mean we can get as ridiculous as you want to get, but don't be asking me why you can't own these things. I don't write the laws and I don't have the background or authority or desire to try to answer these kinds of questions for you. And also none of that crazy stuff has anything to do with my original comment about the potential negative consequences on those that make their living in law enforcement. If you are having trouble understanding any of this, re-read it as many times as needed. But this being one final stab at it (out of several), I probably won't be wasting anymore time repeating it all again.

Definitely could be a contributer. I didn't think of that. It would be great if someone took a crack at a study just to see if there isn't some feature that should be emphasized. We're doing darned good, but there always is room for improvement.

I would actually like to see school security become a trained career. I'm talking about an actual schooling with intense firearms handling, martial arts and examples of scenarios and recommended reactions, and rules of policy. I do not mean a couple weeks of seminars. It would be good to actually develop a curriculum with testing and certification when completed. Upon completion there would be an intense background check, and an offer of jobs that actually allowed these graduates to earn a decent income. Such a trained professional security could be useful in schools and any other place that needed quality trained people in that field.

Pretty darn safe activity , isn't it? ....... and getting better every decade. It would be nice to be able to analyze why, but I don't see anyway to pull that out of the numbers. And then, along comes a year like 2010 where the number of incidents popped back up to 40 from 26, and then dropped back down the following year ..... What's that all about? Anyway, this declining number of incidents every decade ..... Is that because of safety training? Is it because of fewer actual man-hours of hunting? Is it because of increased use of blaze orange? I guess one can wonder and wonder and probably never figure it out.....lol.

Lol .... I got so far out on a tangent with my last reply, that I forgot to respond to the initial topic. But anyway, doesn't the first "F" in the FFL mean Federal. How tough would it be to siphon off each hit into a federal background database into a separate "sort" for some other agency's use? And as far as what is contained in that store clerk's database query, all I know is that the guy at the counter was typing for a long time and was putting a whole lot more than just my name and address in there while he was accessing it. Now, I have never used the system so I can't speak with any kind of authority, but it sure did seem to me that while he was logged into their database he sure was inputting an awful lot of info.

Not to get too far away from the original topic, but one of the problems with relying on private arms to turn back tyranny is the realities of the effectiveness of the weapons that we are counting on. I understand that aspect of the 2nd Amendment and have used the same argument myself, but often I wonder about the realities of that thought. Deer rifles and shotguns against armed drones and tactical nukes? .... Really?? Every year that goes by brings on new unimaginable and unbelievable technology in the hands of the government. This isn't 1776 when the general population had exactly the same weapons as the government. I watched some of that footage that was being aired during the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and simply cannot imagine going up against that kind of ridiculous overwhelming firepower with my new .270 or my 12 guage. You know, I think we have to work on that argument a bit .... lol.

What I would rather see these companies do is to throw some money into the pot for the current legal challenge to this law. That would be something useful and really effective that would result in real lasting change. It would also be something that is in their financial interest. In fact it probably would be in their interests and ours to initiate some court challenges of their own against this law. That would also be an action aimed at the right people for a change. I would also like to see them throw some cash at the lobbying efforts against Obama's federal anti-gun activities (an issue that seems to be fading into the background here).