Culvercreek hunt club

didn't want to see you blow a gasket at least until you get a chance to get intothe crossbow and antler restrictions threads...lol

How can a personal belief on this topic be wrong? some think that life begins at conception and others at the point of awarness. To some it is a mass of cells and to others it is life.I have a 17 year old daughter soon to be headed to college. I pray I never have to go down that road, but in a couple months she is a legal adult and she can take the views we instilled in her and use tham as she believes is right. We did the best we could and now it is cross you fingers time. I am not father of the year by any stretch but I wish that all these kids hitting the streets would put their kids first and it might be a different world.

Carbon. It is becomong evident to me that you have some real issues. You are bashing religion and their view on abortion and getting on your soap box with attacks and not ONE person on this thread has even brought it up besides you. Can someone please check his IP with Early's...lol

No way I would support Nuking Afghanistan!!! California maybe but never Afghanistan

And it is those cases that taint the ones where they really need the help.

There is no "right" to welfare. This is the type to scenario that frosts my a$$. I would give her a pass on the first and assist with govt fund...everyone make a mistake. But before you get funds for #1 you submit to sterilization so there is no #2. Your choice and nothing is forced on you Take it or leave it.

Grow. you threw me off with the first sentence about deliberate decissions since Carbon was speaking to mistakes that were happening. I understand your comments now. Personally I am torn on the abortion topic. I am strongly against late term abortions but I feel in the cases of incest and rape it is a no brainer and should be allowed. I believe there used to be a social stigma to getting an abortion like many other aspects back them that are generally accepted today. Welfare used to be a stigma as well but many wear it as a badge of honor today. Everyone does make mistakes (Lord knows I have) but it seems like society is all about sweeping things under the carpet and pretend they didn't happen and they definitely don't learn from them.

so they would be free to practice their own religion.

Are you sure you are commenting to me?

Fair enough.

Where do you stand on the tax payer funding fo the care for those that choose to have that baby and multiple babies? How do you feel about govt. mandated sterilization for those that repeatedly have those children and expect tax payers to fund them? Where do you stand on the death penalty?

what are your thoughts on sterilizations, Grow?

Vurgil. I don't think that that race has a darn thing to do with the crime. If you look at their logic though and take Biden's view that anything is worth just saving one life, then where do we stop the insanity? Males are also far more likely to commit firearms murder. DO we take all the guns away from Males? Age groups of between 18 and 25 account for the vast majority of firearms murders, Do we keep them from owning? Statistics show that the highest percentage of firearms murders are in Urban areas. Do we just ban firearms for any city residents? My point was that statistics can not stand alone to draw a conclusion. Just as your statement that the AR's and high capacity mags in the hads of law abiding individuals makes the criminal more deadly. If you support the legislation, that is what you are saying becasue the laws are only impacting the law abiding.

pussification of a nation.

That is why I put Cause in quotes. Just as the legal ownership of an assault weapon or a high capacity does not reflect the actual cause of the murders. I am applying their same failed logic. But let's discuss it. Blacks accouned for 52% of total murders, Cauc.-45% and other-3%. This is with a % of population 72% Cauc and 13% Black. 15% other. Apply "their" logic to those numbers and what would the results be?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blXkl9YVoHo

I don't agree with that action or approach in the least and I was trying to illustrate that if they really wanted to take a bit out the violence the assault weapons is not where to start. You would logically start with the largest statistical "cause" of the murders. They would never do that becasue of the make up of their base. But if they were genuine in ther desire to reduce that firearms murder rate they would start there. This leads to Doc's point. It isn't their true intention. as far as quotes from them stating their goal that they want total elimination of lawfully owned firearms, you won't fin any other than a few slips and references to Austrailia and England's "success. It is up to each to draw their own conclusions and I agree with Doc in that being their goal.

I understand the reasons behind it I just don't agree with the logic of it. It is an emotional response. Much like the poll numbers they are using to show support for Coumo's actions in pushing this through. I would love to see the numbers AND the questions for the polls. The general public knows nothing of what was and what now is included in laws regarding guns. If I asked general questions on the street like "do you support the safe act and it's reduction in magazine capacity from high capacity to 7 rounds"? "Do you think reducing the capacity of a magaine by only 3 rounds will make any difference in murder rates"? I could see a huge swing in the results. Has anyone seen the poll questions used in the poll they keep quoting showing "overwhelming" support for the Safe Act?

The issue I have with all this gun control is they are not sincere in there efforts and eliminating one freedom and right is just opening the flood gate to more. How far is too far? If we want to really look at statistics and decide we want to take harsh steps to really "stop" the gun violence then the assault weapons should not have been the first move. Pistols should not have even been the first move. Statistically speaking and since infringing on rights is no longer an issue, All African Americans should have all their ability to own a fiream removed. Statistically they are far more likely to commit a crime and commit murder and commit murder with a firearm. According to the FBI. SO how far is too far?

And that is the vaset majority of the firearms related murders. Maybe these may help a bit http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded/expanded-homicide-data http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_cities_by_crime_rate

I believe the use of you and your in that sentence following Paula's quote is the confusion. Perhaps "do you think one's grammar"

Let's just put out of our minds for a quick second that most of us don't trust the Govt. (Just go me on a list for that one...lol) I would really like to see a permit like a drivers license and have it be national. I passed my background check so I should be able to drive from NY to CA with my firearms (pistols included). Everyone should have the same standard of evaluation. This one county not issuing a standard CC permit without restrictions to the hoops you guys in the cespool...I mean NY City... have to go through to get a carry long gun, say nothing about a pistol permit, While the other end of the spectrum in states Maine you just need a drivers license. Nuts. I wish it were standard. I keep hearing the arguments that these new laws are needed nad it will fix the problems. I have read so many articles, studies and statistics my head spins. I just don't see it. It this approach were so effective then wouldn't our streets be drug free? We have laws on laws to make possession sale and use of illegal drugs, well, illegal.

Personally I dont have a problem with background checks for all levels of sales. I believe the entire argument against them is the "give them and inch and they take a mile" stance. And they may very well be right given the approach NY has taken to passing the Safe act. I believe it will do nothing but has driven a wedge betweent he two views, making any common ground approach very doubtful. Sad days.

One year we we filling nusiance permits for a nursery. Our group filled our freezers and donated 13 deer that year. I donated one this year and have in the past. Always seemed like a good program to me. I would rather feed the needy than give discretionary money to be frettered away and they still are hungry,.

Which statemant?