Sogaard

I understand your view on the Treaty, but you also must take into effect what the Treaty was actually written to prevent. "On 2 April 2013, the General Assembly adopted the landmark Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), regulating the international trade in conventional arms, from small arms to battle tanks, combat aircraft and warships. The treaty will foster peace and security by putting a stop to destabilizing arms flows to conflict regions. It will prevent human rights abusers and violators of the law of war from being supplied with arms. And it will help keep warlords, pirates, and gangs from acquiring these deadly tools." Source: http://www.un.org/disarmament/ATT/ When that message gets twisted by politicians and fear mongers with a political and monetary agenda, you get "They are trying to take away our 2nd Amendment Rights!!!!!!". The dirty truth is, US Arms manufacturing companies want to profit from selling to these conflict regions, so they do not want it approved. To quote John Goodman in one of my favorite movies, "It's all about the money, boys!"

Honestly, I think my indifference is based on the fact I live in the city. My neighbors' houses are ten feet on either side of me. The only things that give me any semblance of privacy are the curtains.

Ok, I guessed correctly on one of your points. I can understand the first too, even if I disagree with it. Well, not so much "disagree" as, don't care about how someone else feels if I'm hunting in a legal spot. People who have negative views on hunting don't care if you are 150', 500' or 50,000' from them, they will still have their views.

I think this is a good idea too, although I do want to hear your reasoning against it, Doc. Why don't you like this change? The only thing I can think of is recovery rights for people hunting small tracts of land that could not previously be hunted. EDIT: haha, yes Doc, I saw that after I posted

The UN has never been able to enforce their treaties. It has always been countries promising to do something, until they don't feel like it anymore. If the point you're getting at is the UN is a completely useless, I agree. All the UN can try to do in impose sanctions through the Security Council, which the US would have to chooses to do (along with China, France, Russia, the UK). Again, I believe you give them way to much credit.

I think you give the UN way too much credit.

"other nations might be required to ban the export of firearms to the U.S" Honestly, do you really think foreign arms manufacturers are going to let this stop them from exporting guns to their biggest consumer nation? They have lobby groups too. Buy American anyway.

Do you even know what the U.N. Small Arms Treaty was about? And do you know how it would effect the Second Amendment even it it had been passed? Reid v. Covert, look it up. Stop being sheep to fear mongers. Doc, I'm actually surprised you bought into this one, you're usually one of the more informed people on the forum. TLDR: The Constitution supersedes international treaties ratified by the US Senate.

Anyone that I know who has killed a bear (legally) in NY was deer hunting and a bear happened to come by. When I was younger, I use to know a guy that would almost always get a nice sized bear every season. After he moved away, I found out he would dump doughnuts on his land in the spring and summer, then kill a fattened bear in the fall. He had some deal with the local doughnut shop and would buy anything headed to the dumpster. Never liked that guy...

11 The first pinned topic on this forum tells you exactly who voted for, and against, the SAFE act. And to remove the ellipsis from the quote, and give it a little more context: Republican Party candidates are running against the SAFE Act — it was voted for by moderate Republicans who run the Senate! Their problem is not me and the Democrats; their problem is themselves. Who are they? Are they these extreme conservatives who are right-to-life, pro-assault-weapon, anti-gay? Is that who they are? Because if that’s who they are and they’re the extreme conservatives, they have no place in the state of New York, because that’s not who New Yorkers are. Honestly, I think he is right. A NY Republican is a Democrat anywhere that isn't sitting on a coast line. For people that are complaining that there are no hard line "Extreme Conservatives" in the NY government, there is a reason for that. There aren't enough people who would vote for them to get them into office. It is about representing the views of the majority of the people, right? I'm pretty sure that is how Democracy is supposed to work. What the Republican party needs is someone who is a staunch conservative fiscally, but progressive on social issues. New Yorkers do not vote bible thumpers into office.

Funny, but that isn't the 2013 list. That is the 2005 list, recycled. Edit: Reference: http://www.snopes.com/horrors/freakish/darwin05.asp

Hi (I just wanted to contribute at least one post to this epic thread)

Definitely worth reading. http://www.fieldandstream.com/articles/hunting/2013/10/dirty-politics-deer-management

I didn't see one here. I've been following the ones on AT.

Correct.

+1

I also can't find a way to update any personal information, so I hope no one moves. Ever.

Yup. I had the same problem. It has my house number, but ignored the cell and work numbers I entered. It definitely has bugs to be worked out, not surprised though, new government web sites have had a lot of problems of late.

Put all our info in and then register, once you have the account created, it should update the page and show your past or current licence info. At least that is what happened when I registered.

I have a Rem 700 in 300 WSM and I'm very happy with it.

Or just get permission.

And if the Republicans were controlling all three, there would be no Affordable Care Act. We can play IFs all day. My whole point back then was that nothing on the national level will be changed because nothing was getting through the House. But people wanted to predict doom anyway, so I laugh.

A couple of years ago you were saying Obama was going to make changes on the federal level and take away all your guns. Still hasn't happened. And I'm still laughing at you for insisting it would. Unfortunately, because of the tragedy in Connecticut, our state legislature pushed through a terrible piece of legislation just so they could say, "Look at us, we are doing something to protect your children!". Since it is still only on the state level, at least it is easier to change / repeal. Don't forget to vote this November when a lot of those Assembly and State Senate people are up for reelection.

I thought the Bald Eagle Protection Act was extended to Alaska in 1952 or 1953, but I could wrong. Either way, I still get a thrill if I see one, and I'm glad they can't be hunted. I guess maybe I would feel different if they were common and impacted my livelihood (ie. an Alaskan fisherman).