Mr VJP

Very nice 10 pointer. Don't get hung up on scores. It's about memories more than competition.

I have a Kel-Tec P3-AT which is very similar to the Ruger LCP, but has been around longer. It has a double action only trigger on it, so it feels like the trigger on a revolver. It also has no safety. It's designed to replace snubby revolvers for concealed carry and be fired quickly in self defense at close to moderate ranges. I don't find the trigger to be much different than most of my short barreled revolvers. It can be fired quite accurately when it is intentionally aimed at 10 yards or so, once you get to know where the hammer drops on the trigger squeeze. I never considered putting a laser on it though. I didn't even know they made one small enough for the gun.

Find anybody who wants to try hunting, and probably has wanted to for a long time, and invite them to go in May. I've gotten many middle aged people into hunting over the years, both men and women, when they asked about what it was like. I simply say, "Why not give it a try?", and invite them to go. I rarely get turned down. I think they wanted to ask me to take them but didn't want to impose, thinking it too much to ask. Any spark of interest, by any child, friend, relative or stranger, should be looked upon as an opportunity to bring another hunter aboard. Once they see there aren't as many obstacles in the way as they assume there are, they will embrace hunting with a passion.

Welcome aboard. What part of NY did you land in?

132, I use the exact same load as you do in my Mossberg 835 Ulti-Mag with a factory extra Full Turkey choke. I have killed turkey at 70 yards with one shot with that combo. When I tested the pattern on paper, I got a nice even spread in a 30" circle at that range. I'll call them closer if I can, but if they hang up and refuse to come in, I'll reach out there to take them. G-Man, if I get a close in shot, I'll aim for the area where the turkey's wishbone is. It's a bigger target and doesn't move as much as the bird's head. This shot will hit just above the top of the breast meat and darn near take the bird's head off.

Welcome aboard. With this warm weather it looks like all the gobbling and breeding will be over by the time turkey opens. :'(

.35 caliber bullets will put the smack down an a whitetail for sure. Even my .35 Remington with 200 grain soft points hammers them out to 150 yards. That larger frontal area on the .35 caliber slug seems to really transmit the energy better than smaller caliber bullets.

I have heard lemon juice applied to your skin will work, but it has to be real, undiluted lemon juice. I think if you squeeze a lemon and apply the juice it will work. I would try that first if you don't want to eat them. I also find when I smoke one of my cherry/vanilla white tip cigars, the bugs will stay away from me until it's out. I won't smoke one deer hunting, but it doesn't seem to bother the turkey at all.

Welcome Aboard From Delaware County.

I think it is great that so many women are taking up the sport. They may turn out to be what saves the sport in the long run. We need more people buying licenses to ward off the anti's, who seem to be mostly female by the way. The anti's are not able to use their worn out psycho/sexual attacks about men who like hunting on women who hunt. And female hunters are better at putting the anti's in their place with a factual retort. It's a good thing these women like to hunt and anything out there that inspires other women to try it is a good thing. It's also a good thing for young girls to see they can grow up to be a hunter too. I'd love to find a women who would hunt with me and tolerate my obsession with the sport. It has also been my experience women make better shooters, as well as good hunting partners out to enjoy the sport without trying to prove something.

True, but total number of licenses sold is going down every year. Take a kid hunting and fishing and recruit people who show an interest in the outdoors. We need to keep the numbers up or it will be easier for the anti's to knock the rest of us down.

If Wildlife Management Land is purchased with funds from hunting license money or taxes on hunting equipment and ammo, then the DEC should be managing the land primarily for the benefit of hunters. Song birds will benefit from land managed for hunting anyway. Bird watchers pay taxes, but the majority of their paid taxes are not dedicated to managing Wildlife Management Areas. If the majority of the revenue to manage the land comes from hunting equipment, license and tag fees, the DEC should be managing the land for hunting.

Second Amendment: Schumer's Latest Gun Grabbing Idea While the gun grabbers have been suspiciously quiet during the first two years of the Obama regime, there was never a doubt that they would raise their ugly heads at some time. That time is now. As was detailed previously, Barack Obama exploited the recent Tucson shootings and wrote an op-ed about new gun-control efforts. Now it's time for the tyrants in Congress to come forward. Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), sponsor of various anti-firearms legislation over the years including the Clinton-era "assault weapons" ban, recently introduced the "Fix Gun Checks Act of 2011," an Orwellian-named bill if ever there was one. One of the alleged goals of the bill is to close the so-called "gun show loophole" about which hoplophobes are always screaming. Specifically, private gun owners can, sans scrutiny of the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS,) sell their firearms to other private citizens they may meet at gun shows. However, Schumer's bill doesn't even mention gun shows. Instead, it would require an NICS check on all firearm transfers whether commercial or private regardless of location. Under some interpretations, even lending a firearm to a friend would require an NICS check. Naturally, all these checks would require paperwork, and the Brady Campaign wants the FBI to keep it, essentially resulting in a universal federal firearm registration, long a dream of the anti-Second Amendment crowd. Schumer's bill also includes provisions for greatly expanding the number of people who would forever be denied Second Amendment rights. Perhaps most Orwellian, an individual who receives any type of mental health service would be included, regardless of whether he poses any danger. Interestingly, the bill would also require colleges that receive federal funds to set up "mental health assessment teams" who would evaluate and refer students to mental health authorities for further evaluation. Does anyone believe this would stop at colleges? (Besides, who didn't do something in college that might make for a poor mental evaluation?) We fear that firearms owners would be hunted down, "evaluated," "treated," and then have their firearms forever confiscated. While this bill's passage is questionable in this Congress, it illustrates the tactics the anti-Second Amendment leftists will use. Keep your powder dry.

Three men - a Canadian farmer, Osama bin Laden and a Texan are all walking together one day. They come across a lantern and a Genie pops out of it. 'I will give each of you one wish, which is three wishes in total', says the Genie. The Canadian says, 'I am a farmer and my son will also farm. I want the land to be forever fertile in Canada .' POOF! With the blink of the Genie's eye, the land in Canada was forever fertile for farming. Osama was amazed, so he said, 'I want a wall around Afghanistan, Palestine , Iraq and Iran so that no infidels, Americans or Canadians can come into our precious land.' POOF! Again, with the blink of the Genie's eye, there was a huge wall around those countries. The Texan says, 'I am very curious. Please tell me more about this wall.' The Genie explains, 'Well, it's about 5,000 feet high, 5oo feet thick and completely surrounds the countries. Nothing can get in or out; it's virtually impenetrable.' The Texan sits down on his horse, cracks a beer, smiles and says, 'Fill it with water.'

I applaud Mr Robinson for his insight. I believe he is on the right track. Posts are a lot more interesting, informative and enlightening when they are presented on a mature, civil and intellectual level. If things were kept that way, we would all benefit by sorting ideas out and learning different views, which just might teach us something new about our own views and ideas. Nothing wrong with good natured humor, but only if everyone accepts it as good natured. Because this is a site that allows anyone to join and post, we are not a select group. We can't penalize those who don't post that way, but we can ignore the posts and refuse to react to them. That is what they deserve and that is what they should get.

The Outlaw Josey Wales.

Everything done by Parsons on that video was legal. Killing problem elephants is not uncommon there. The crops have been saved, the people got plenty of meat and the danger from the elephant is over. Time does slant this article from the start by saying what was done was somehow wrong. What exactly was wrong with it? They take issue with the video and the bravado, but nothing that was done was in any way illegal. I'm going to send Parsons a letter of Congratulations and praise. Maybe he'll take me with him on his next trip all expenses paid.

The Truth About Dove Hunting It is becoming a full-time job keeping up with the misinformation distributed by the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS). On March 24, Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad signed NRA-backed legislation allowing the state to hold mourning dove hunting for the first time in nearly a century. The day before, when the Iowa Legislature sent the bill to the governor, HSUS issued the following statement: "We are disappointed that the Iowa Senate and House of Representatives have voted to allow the target shooting of mourning doves for the first time since 1918," said Carol Griglione, Iowa state director for The Humane Society of the United States. "This bill repeals nearly a century of dove protection policy in our state, yet lawmakers rushed it through the process with hardly a word of debate or a serious vetting of the issues. Doves are not overpopulated, there is very little meat on their bodies, and there is no management rationale for a new hunting season - they will simply be shot for target practice. We urge Governor Branstad to veto this bill and keep the century-long tradition of dove protection in Iowa." There is an outright lie or a meaningless argument in every sentence of this statement, not to mention omission of facts that anyone who really cares about wildlife would want to know. Lie # 1: Use of the terms "target shooting" and "target practice." Hunting is not target shooting-practically or legally. In fact, Iowa law specifically prohibits "target shooting of game species" under two regulations, both carrying fines, surcharges and court costs. Shooting doves for "target practice" would amount to illegal wanton waste, something ethical hunters abhor. Lie # 2: "Lawmakers rushed it through the process..." Baloney. The "process" and debate have been going on since 1918, the year dove hunting was banned. Hunters have been objecting ever since. Gov. Branstad recently told radioiowa.com, "I also was a state representative in 1973 when we brought the dove bill out of committee. I got more hate mail on that issue than anything else." Moreover, the state Legislature passed a bill to allow dove hunting in 2001, but the governor vetoed it. If the ban has been opposed since 1918, and written and debated in the legislature since at least 1973, how much more "process" do we really need? Meaningless Argument #1: "...there is very little meat on their bodies." Many game fish and birds might subjectively be considered "small" by some, but that doesn't mean they don't provide healthy meals for millions. Plenty of foods Americans love are small, from woodcock and quail to sardines and chicken McNuggets. And dove breast wrapped in bacon is well-known delicacy. HSUS would use this irrelevant statement to oppose not just dove hunting, but all small game hunting. Meaningless Argument #2: Doves are not overpopulated. No, they aren't--and one of the reasons is that they are the most commonly hunted game bird in America. How many would there be without hunting? There are an estimated 350 million doves in the United States, according to the report, Mourning Dove Population Status 2010 by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The total annual hunter harvest is between 5 and 10 percent of the population. Study after study has failed to show hunting has any detrimental impact on dove populations, even considering liberal bag limits. Doves have high mortality rates from disease, predation and weather, but even these factors don't offset their high reproductive rates. Lie #3: "There is no management rationale for a new hunting season." Then why do the game and fish departments of 40 states support it? One rationale is that game management in this country is virtually all funded by hunters and fisherman. A new season means more people hunting, providing more funding for wildlife conservation. Hunting is the foundation of wildlife conservation in this country, and that model applies to doves the same as it does deer and wild turkeys. Major Omission #1: With a hunting season open for doves, the Iowa DNR will likely undertake dove habitat projects. Anyone who really cares about wildlife might want to know that habitat work benefits many other birds and animals in addition to the priority species. If HSUS really cared about birds, they'd tell you that dove management practices benefit everything from bobwhite quail to the yellow-rumped warbler. Foxes, rabbits and other mammals benefit, too. Major Omission #2: HSUS constantly ignores the economic benefits of hunting. The Iowa DNR estimates dove hunters would contribute $6.9 million to the state's economy and generate $462,000 in state sales tax revenue. While no hunter will be surprised at HSUS's statements, it's important that we don't get complacent about refuting them just because they are predictable. HSUS is intensifying its attempts to reach our children through so-called "educational" outreach to our school system. It's bad enough that so many adults believe what HSUS says. It is horrible to think how they might affect our kids. --J.R. Robbins Robbins is Managing Editor, www.NRAhuntersrights.org

I'll again post what I posted in another thread here, as it states my feelings perfectly. "I would not have involved our military in Libya. For one thing, I see no reason why the Arab League, which gave the no-fly zone notion a big thumbs-up, doesn't take on that job. They have pilots and jets. Why is it that America and the European nations always have to do their dirty work? All it ever gets us is the ongoing hatred and resentment of Arabs and Muslims. Besides, unlike most people, I have not been sitting on the sidelines rooting for the rebellion forces in the Middle East. I do not confuse enemies of my enemies with friends. I have no reason to think that when the smoke clears, we are going to see a lot of George Washingtons and Thomas Jeffersons running any of those moral swamplands. It is far likelier that Al Qaeda, Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood and Hezbollah, will fill any and all power vacuums in that part of the world, with the mullahs in Tehran pulling their collective strings. ... I am not suggesting that the U.S. military should never venture out beyond our borders, but we should have a better reason for doing so than because CNN is showing us one bunch of anti-American creeps killing another bunch of anti-American creeps. In short, we should not be letting the 6 o'clock news determine our foreign policy." --columnist Burt Prelutsky

Are you saying: You don't agree with what was said, because of who said it. You agree with what was said, but not with who said it. You are ignoring what was said, because of who said it. All of the above.

There's no question that the rebels Americans are currently fighting for in Libya include in their ranks jihadis who in recent years traveled to Iraq and Afghanistan to kill Americans. The only question is whether that worries you or not. Take Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi, a leader of U.S.-supported rebels in the fighting for Adjabiya. His hometown, Darnah, has produced many jihadis, and after the Sept. 11 attacks al-Hasidi traveled to Afghanistan to fight the "foreign invasion" -- that is, the U.S. military. According to a report in Britain's Daily Telegraph, al-Hasidi says he was later captured in Pakistan, handed over to the U.S., then held in prison in Libya before being released in 2008. In addition to fighting the U.S. in Afghanistan, al-Hasidi also says he recruited about two dozen men to fight the U.S. in Iraq. Now al-Hasidi and his allies are moving toward Tripoli, which would not be possible without the military power of the United States. The men who devoted so much energy to killing Americans are now thankfully watching Americans kill for them. To some observers, that's no big deal. "No one seems all that frightened by him," the New York Times wrote of al-Hasidi after a visit to Darnah in early March. Al-Hasidi, the paper reported, "praises Osama bin Laden's 'good points' but denounces the 9/11 attacks on the United States." And besides, the Times reported, al-Hasidi finds it amusing that the government of Moammar Gadhafi considers him an al Qaeda terrorist. "He promised to lay down his arms once victory is won and return, he said, to teaching," the Times reported. Maybe you believe that. Maybe you don't. The problem is, al-Hasidi is by no means alone. We know that from intelligence gained in the Iraq War. During that war, American strategists became increasingly concerned by the number of foreign fighters who came to Iraq to take up arms against the U.S. In an October 2007 raid near Sinjar, Iraq, American forces captured a computer that had biographical information on about 700 foreign terrorists who had come to Iraq between August 2006 and August 2007. An analysis of the so-called "Sinjar documents" found that Libya sent more fighters to the Iraqi front than any other country except Saudi Arabia; Libyans accounted for nearly 20 percent of the foreign fighters in the Sinjar documents. Some of those Libyans were from an al Qaeda-affiliated organization called the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, whose membership reportedly included one Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi. In 2004, then-CIA Director George Tenet named the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group part of the "next wave" of terrorism that could threaten U.S. security whether or not al Qaeda was destroyed. So what should the United States do about Libyan fighters who went to Iraq to kill Americans? And Libyans who went to Afghanistan to kill Americans? And Libyans who recruited them and helped them with their travels? Should we be hunting those people down? Or should we be fighting on their behalf? "It's a real concern, there's no ifs, ands or buts about it," says Michael Rubin, a Middle East scholar at the conservative American Enterprise Institute. "The question for policymakers is, does that concern mean we should not be seeking change in those countries?" Rubin supports U.S. involvement in the Libyan war and believes the number of people like al-Hasidi is relatively small. "It's not a reason not to support the rebels," he says. "It is a reason not to arm them, or not to trust others to arm them." As for the jihadis who killed Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan, Rubin would like to see U.**** teams" take care of them. But that, of course, would be way, way, way outside the United Nations Security Council Resolution that guides American actions in Libya. If the U.S.-led coalition prevails, it seems likely that some of the jihadis will choose not to return to lives as humble schoolteachers, as al-Hasidi claims, but instead become part of the new leadership of Libya. There's no way the U.S. can be involved in an action like the Libyan war without coming in contact with some pretty bad actors. That's a good reason not to be involved in an action like the Libyan war. But even if involvement is an ugly necessity, do we have to give active support and protection to people who have devoted their lives to killing Americans?

You think so? http://www.windstream.net/news/read...018&page=1

No, it's more of a question of how it affects us over here. Are we making it better or worse for us over here?

"In the homogeneous Democratic Party of today, Henry Wallace might have made it through a convention. Certainly a community leader from Chicago, Barack Obama could and he only had four years experience in national politics, two of those years spent on the campaign trail. Now he has shown the progressive's traditional impatience with our Constitutional process. He did not go to Congress to get a declaration or an authorization of war. He has no authorization from Congress to spend money on his no-fly zone. In fact he did not go to Congress at all. He went directly to the United Nations, seeking authority to act in Libya. ... He was more comfortable with 'world opinion' and 'the community of nations.' But now that community is breaking up. China and Russian are not with him. The lesser nations are in flux, and even military commanders in the coalition are uncertain. President Obama does not really know what is happening. I suggest he have another of his Beer Summits, this time with George W. Bush, though I would caution him to follow George's custom and make it a Sarsaparilla Summit." --columnist R. Emmett Tyrrell

"Last year, you'll recall that we created an iPhone app for the Manhattan Declaration. The app would allow users to read, sign, and share the Manhattan Declaration and its defense of human life, traditional marriage, and religious freedom. Apple said the app was 'free from objectionable material.' But when a group that supports so-called 'gay marriage' protested that the Declaration promoted 'hate' and 'homophobia' and was 'anti-gay,' (which it wasn't), Apple removed the app from its iPhone store. ... Now they have another: Exodus International, a Christian ministry that aims to free people from homosexuality. Apple has now removed the Exodus International app from its app store. ... Some may say that losing an iPhone app for Exodus International isn't that big a deal... But it's not just about apps. It's about freedom of speech, the ability to participate in the marketplace of ideas. The gay-rights groups have shown their fangs. Victory in the courts or in the legislatures is not enough for them. They want to silence, yes, destroy those who don't agree with their agenda. So they target Christian groups and corporate America to do just that. The writing is on the wall, folks. For the sake of religious liberty and free speech, we must not remain silent. Not on this issue, or on any issue that would threaten free speech and freedom of religion." --author Chuck Colson