Culvercreek hunt club

You have to change the quality of folks you hang around with...lol.

two words--Peanut Oil. Enjoy. Don't overlook things like a really good fish fry as well.

If the guns and access to them (especially those evil "assault weapons")are the problem, then why has firearm homicide gone down consistently since the Assault Weapon Ban was allowed to expire?

Just had to take them apart.

I guess I can't get behind the comments that all teachers would NOT be capable. Just like I can't get behind the call to use previous military. I think many of them would not be capable. Hell after their initial training, how many just fly desks? This event also proved that not all LEO's are capable as well. Many of them go through their careers not having to take that kind of action as well. That said I am sure there are very capable people in all 3 pools that could act appropriately. Nothing that happens to try and stop this will be fool proof. Just like everything else, the evil will find a way around any measures we put in place.

I thought the only application where you could was on dissimilar materials.

I believe there was a ruling that police actually are under no requirement to act.

I he’s d a report the other night that Texas already had it.

I get it. I just think there may be more teachers that have training like military training that we may think. I don’t need them to know the law as a police officer does. I want a bad guy to be laying flat once he shows up with a gun. And I do understand their are military folks that flew desks and probably would t fit either. I also think there are teachers that are just CC permit holders that would work with training and rigorous evaluations.

I know 4 teachers with previous military experience. You are painting with a very general brush. I wonder how many have previous armed experience? I guess until we know that number and how many would be willing to do it, your comment are pure speculation? No?

It drives the left crazy. The Liberal mega states want to rule becasue of their population and feel that the majority should rule. In reality the tiny less populated states have the same stature when trying to ratify a modification to the constitution. 38 states need to ratify the amendment. Since we aren't using Obama's listing of 57 states, that would mean only 13 states would be needed to stop any ratification. I can think of 18 off the top of my head that I don't think would ever vote to ratify. Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas Georgia Idaho Kansas Kentucky Mississippi Missouri Montana North Dakota Oklahoma South Dakota Texas Utah West Virginia Wyoming

But do you know why they haven't tried to modify the Constitution to remove gun ownership?

And that is why electing Trump was so important. I have my fingers crossed for Ginsburg and Breyer to fold up. Two more would change the make up of the court where some of thes crap laws could be challenged on their Constitutional basis.

If we were a Democracy that would be true. But we aren't. We are a Constitutional Republic and that is a long way from a Democracy. Mob rule was known and that is why we have the system we do. There is a process to change or modify the Constitution. It isn't by backroom deals or giving in to Mob rule or even passing a law like the old Assault weapon ban. I certainly would not be happy but would have more respect for the other side if they make the effort to modify the Constitution to remove gun ownership. There is a reason they haven't though. Know why that is?

And there in lies the real problem.

If you guys shrug this off and take the "oh well" approach you are in for a rude awakening. Take a read at the current gun regulations in detail that Australia has in place and see where this is going. I know many don't have AR's or any of those other evil guns but if you think for one minute it will stop there you are nuts. The proof is in these other countries. The reason it won't stop there is becasue even if they get step one through it WON'T make any difference. That will be justification that another step is needed. (For the record I don't even have any of the weapons that they are having a hissy Fit over) . So sit there with you semi "hunting" rifle, your semi shotgun, all you pumps, bolt guns, pistols and revolvers and see which ones will be next. I have stated earlier I think there is ground we could give up on in terms of determining who can have through mandatory background checks (even though that won't change anything either) but you had better think twice before caving on the banning of a category of firearm.

You have every right to your opinion no matter how misguided it is. Neat thing is I am also allowed to have the opinion that you are misguided. You are willing to cave on the AR’s and from the sound of it all semi’s. What is the next category you want to give away when nothing changes?pumps? Pistols? Bolts?

I think you are in the minority of gun owners caving like that.

Do you own any semi automatic rifles?

Not to put ideas in any heads but I can't honestly believe that any of these wackos hasn't opted to a 12 gauge. I know it is ammo demanding but I've see #4 buck out of a short barrel cylinder bore give about 12-15" pattern at 10 yards (30') I think the #4 (25 caliber)? is 25-27 pellets at over 1300 fps. I know what the smarter pick would be if someone needed to just "shoot away"

I disagree. his/her position is that they are less safe at that age and there is NO data to support that. I guess we have a different definition of "valid" lol

which is?

Aren't they in the woods now and at times carrying the same firearms they would be to hunt deer? During that hunting they only need to be accompanied by and Adult/mentor. Currently at 14 and 15 they need to be under direct physical control by the Adult/mentor. I would imagine the same requirement would be for the younger hunters.

how about Remington 7400, Winchester 100, Browning BAR?

So you are willing to side step a Constitutional right and be perfectly OK as long as it saves one life?