Doc

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.

Lol .... I don't think I have ever heard anyone trying so hard to stick their head in the sand. "It can never happen"....... "Yeah but it did happen in Louisiana" ....... "Well, it won't happen again .... Trust me!" Just face the facts that it did happen, and there are significant numbers of people in pretty powerful positions who would love to see it happen everywhere. I think there is reason for concern. Anytime the government forces there way into the personal business of it's citizens, there is reason for concern. And when the government supplies that personal info for publication, I think somebody better recognize that they have gone way to far. Those that welcome such intrusions deserve whatever consequences come out of that.

You are absolutely correct. This ammo back-ground check is simply another way at getting de-facto registration. It serves no purpose other than identifying who owns what when it comes to guns. That seems to be kind of an emphasis these days in the minds of the gun-confiscators. Nothing like having a database locating gun owners and identifying what kinds of guns you might be looking for when you are obsessed with confiscation. First they blame the guns for commiting the crimes. Now they want to blame the bullets. And all the time, the only ones affected are those people that obey the law.

I have no problem with things drifting a bit. Usually it means that the original topic has reached its natural end. I kind of like to let these things go where ever they want to go. However, if you want to start a new thread to explore that subject in a bit more depth, go ahead and do so. It sounds like a great topic.

Nope! I am where I most likely to wind up forever. At my age, there is no way I would ever want to pick up and move. I got over the "grass is greener on the other side of the fence" syndrome a lot of years ago. I've personalized and customized my property to the extent that I don't have enough years left on this planet to do it all over again. What I would consider would be to have an alternative seasonal location. That is if I were to suddenly win a lottery or something where I would have enough money to support two places. But any place I would ever consider would have to be free from floods, tornados, hurricanes, earthquakes, poisonous snakes, deadly spiders, excessive heat or cold, and terrain that was not too flat (boring), or so mountainous that I couldn't get my ATV up the hills. It would have to have plenty of green and not too much brown (Texas is out). It would have to be rural, but not remote (I'm past that kind of rugged isolation and a bit too dependant on ready access to medical facilities and other comforts of civilization). There probably is no such place ... lol. It doesn't matter..... it ain't going to happen anyway.... lol.

Noahstone- Beautiful place in a heck of a picturesque location. Is that a pond or part of a river? What kind of fish are there? Do you ever have any security issues being that close to state land?

That thought crossed my mind too as those guys casually stood there talking and filming this obviously crazy animal that in terms of a deer's speed, was certainly in a position to be on them before they could even react.

What a provocative comment. If I understand your meaning, I would love to see this thought developed into a full-fledged forum topic. It certainly does stir up a note of sympathy with me in terms of the way I personally view hunting/technology.

With only one exception, all these guys left a permanent record of their vote on this law. Yes it was primarily a Democrat led and supported bill but there were some Republican votes. And like I said above, it is not a Democrat vs Republican issue. It is an issue of punishing the supporters of this law and rewarding the opposition, regardless of what party they belong to .... plain and simple. Make it clear that they are representing us or they are gone. Get party affiliation out of your voting process and make your decisions based on voting record. So what if you become a "one-issue" voter. That's not a criminal act. But it is a very effective way of getting these people back in line. Make them pay for their voting record!

My feeling is that by voting against a proposed (but unread) law, you are not adding anything negative to the system. Nothing has been made worse. But blindly putting into law something that you have not read or understood or performed the proper level of research on runs risks of making existing situations worse. If you do not have time to adequately know what you are voting for, vote against it. That seems so stinking obvious to me, and yet apparently that's not the way it's done.