Grouse

There is a big, long tined 6 point I've been seeing around here, that would be an 8 point if it had brow tines, which is doesn't. Still a shooter if he gives a hunter a chance.

I don't think such highly educated and professional experts would be considered idiots. But people who like to vilify others and resort to name calling may be. Your comment doesn't show any intelligent analysis about the question, just personal bias.

I think we are getting off the vaccination subject here. Isn't there another thread to discuss the Jan 6th protest?

An election full of fraud that was about to be officially certified. We are about to have the results of many state audits come out. Let's see what they say. I'm betting the left will attack the auditors and try to discredit them and their findings as soon as the numbers show there was enough fraud to throw the election to Biden.

No, patriots always support their country, but they only support their government when it deserves it. They will not support a government administration that is corrupt and not representing the people. Patriots have always been willing to fight corruption and enemies of the Constitution. a person who loves, supports, and defends his or her country and its interests with devotion. a person who regards himself or herself as a defender, especially of individual rights, against presumed interference by the federal government.

Yet many doctors and medical professionals have rejected the vaccine and are willing to be fired over not getting it. Why is that?

One writer thinks he's stumbled upon the secret to persuading millions of Americans to give up their guns. Lewis Morris A well-armed citizenry is perhaps the single biggest bulwark against tyrannical government, and therefore the biggest obstacle to the Left's goal of subverting and remaking America as a socialist worker's paradise. Leftists have been working for years to chisel away at our Second Amendment rights. Their most favored tactic is gun control, creating more restrictive regulations and outlawing certain types of firearms. Obfuscation and lying are also popular, driving home their anti-gun message with twisted statistics and creative reinterpretations of the Second Amendment topping the list. And now, they are resorting to shame. David Frum, who once dabbled in right-of-center politics as a speechwriter for President George W. Bush, has written a predictably shoddy hit piece for The Atlantic on how to persuade Americans to give up their guns. Good luck with that. Frum's assessment is that gun owners can be convinced to give up their guns if they are shamed into thinking that gun ownership is socially unacceptable, much like the movements to reduce smoking and drunk driving. The problem with this equation is that smoking and drunk driving are deliberately destructive behaviors whose outcome, while not foreordained, is heavily weighted toward reduced health and death. Only someone who was rabidly anti-gun in the first place would believe that owning a firearm automatically falls into the same category. Frum is clearly anti-gun, using scare quotes around the words "responsible" and "law abiding" when describing the vast majority of gun owners. By doing so, he is stating that he does not believe there is such a thing as a responsible gun owner, that a person's ability to think clearly goes out the window the moment they come into possession of a firearm. If this is what stands for objective thinking, who needs bias? His argument is tailor-made for The Atlantic's left-leaning readership, chock-full of snide comments about the nature of gun owners — troglodytes who stand in the way of social progress. He also engages in one of the Left's favorite sports by spinning facts and spreading anecdotes as evidence to support his specious claims. Chief among Frum's argument is that gun violence is on the rise because there are so many guns. This may be an easy sell to the uninformed, but it's a statement that falls apart rather quickly. A study funded by anti-gun groups found that the rise in gun purchases since the beginning of the pandemic is not associated with the rise in "gun violence" during that same period. As we have stated before, it is defunding and reducing police presence on America's streets that has led to the rise in crime. The Left loves to talk about systemic problems — how about Democrats' systemic disregard for American law enforcement? Frum also shares several anecdotes about children killed with their parents' guns, suicides, and simple altercations that escalated into fatal shootings. These stories are terribly sad, but they are not the norm among law-abiding gun owners. The NRA's Institute for Legislative Action points out fatal firearm accidents involving children have dropped 91% since 1975. The rate of firearm accidents overall has also dropped significantly. And let's not forget about the historic drop in crime across the board for three decades leading up to 2019, which, again, was when leftist city councils started defunding local police forces. The all-knowing Frum wants his readers to believe that guns don't deter violence. His proof is that we hear more negative stories about guns in the news than positive ones. But John Lott, who is much more astute on the topic than Frum ever could be, debunked that myth years ago. News programs love to share bad news, and many people love to watch it. Deaths and shootings are easier to quantify in this context. There is no real way to measure how the mere sight of a firearm deters crime. Rest assured, it does. Criminals don't roam the countryside looking to get into gunfights; they are looking for easy prey, and that is generally the unarmed individual. Ultimately, this insipid work of Frum's carries the same erroneous assumptions about guns that the Left has pushed for years. He's also writing for his audience, fellow leftists who see guns as evil. There is no new ground being discovered here, and Frum is unlikely to shame Americans into rethinking their right to defend themselves. But we must remain vigilant of our rights, for David Frum and his comrades will continue to push the issue no matter how illogical their arguments may be.

A Stanford professor and prominent COVID policy critic is targeted for thoughtcrime. Nate Jackson You can't say that. That's the mantra of leftists everywhere these days, from Leftmedia "fact-checkers" to Big Tech censors to academia, and it's true of any number of taboo topics. Reminiscent of George Orwell's 1984, you can't deviate from The Party on race, election fraud, and especially the coronavirus. The latter is the focus here, and specifically the efficacy of masks. More on that in a minute. Last fall, prominent medical academics Dr. Martin Kulldorff (Harvard), Dr. Sunetra Gupta (Oxford), and Dr. Jay Bhattacharya (Stanford) teamed up to draft the Great Barrington Declaration. Its purpose was to rebut the groupthink about lockdowns and herd immunity. The gist of their argument was that locking down was ultimately a harmful policy because it delayed herd immunity rather than getting us to it faster and thus bringing an end to this cursed pandemic. Yet because this has been deemed by The Party to be thoughtcrime, here we are nearly a year and multiple vaccines later, and people are still locking things down. The other thing that's made a roaring comeback is masking mandates. Yet Stanford's Dr. Bhattacharya has continued the annoying habit of asking basic scientific questions about whether this policy works and makes sense. He concluded, specifically regarding masks in schools, "There is no high-quality evidence to support the assertion that masks stop the disease from spreading." And he's right, no matter what The Party says. For that, he's being smeared at Stanford because he deviated from The Party. His peers are seeking not just to mask but to muzzle him. Stanford must "clarify for the faculty the limits of public pronouncements when proclaiming on public health policy," insists Professor Melissa Bondy, chair of the epidemiology department. Bhattacharya's Barrington pal, Dr. Kulldorff, came to his defense. Kulldorff and coauthor Carl Heneghan, an Oxford epidemiologist, write, "To deserve trust, scientists must be honest about what is and what is not known, and we agree with Bhattacharya." They elaborate with pesky facts: Don't trust this science or these academics? What about former Biden administration COVID adviser Michael Osterholm? He said last month, "We know today that many of the face cloth coverings that people wear are not very effective in reducing any of the virus movement in or out." That was about the same time the Biden administration decided it's a "civil right" to force kids to wear masks in school. Before COVID was thoroughly politicized, the all-knowing Dr. Anthony Fauci said, "The typical mask you buy in the drug store is not really effective in keeping out virus." And, "There's no reason to be walking around with a mask." As for Bhattacharya, he has already shown that he's willing to keep speaking inconvenient truths, but what will the effort to regulate speech at Stanford or other universities do for other faculty members? Is speaking out anyway worth a reprimand or job loss? The thought police do their jobs all too well. In the meantime, millions of Americans — including those least at risk, school children — continue to be made to wear ineffective masks in various settings. This is despite the science on masking, despite the aggravation and educational hindrance of masking, and despite the fact that millions of Americans are bringing us closer to herd immunity through vaccination or that other unmentionable, natural immunity. When will reason trump fear? Not anytime soon, so long as The Party controls the messaging.

With more than $2 trillion in tax increases, the bill is more than four times Obamacare’s $500 billion in tax hikes. Here are eight things you need to know about President Joe Biden’s and congressional Democrats’ tax increases: https://herit.ag/3EvlwoH

Candace Owens Trump was a dictator, but Biden is mandating vaccines into the arms of people who don’t want them via unconstitutional mandates on small businesses. Trump was a dictator, but Biden has banned drones from flying over the border to capture the images of the tens of thousands of migrants currently flooding our borders. Trump was a dictator, but Biden is fighting parents that do not want their children masked all day in school by overstepping into state rights, and threatening federal funding. Trump was a dictator, but Biden wants to empower the IRS with billions more to monitor every single transaction you make (Venmo, paypal, bank etc). Trump was an evil dictator, but Biden abandoned Americans on Afghanistan soil and lied straight to your face about it. Oh, but hey—-At least Biden doesn’t send mean tweets, right? Let me know when Democrats are ready to acknowledge that they accidentally voted in a REAL totalitarian regime, because they were BRAINWASHED into believing “orange man bad”.

The .22-250 can kill a deer. But the shooter must know it's limitations. It needs a well constructed bullet that will penetrate deep enough for a clean kill and it needs enough energy on target to allow for that good penetration. So, if you use a cartridge with a good hunting bullet in it, such as a Barnes TSX or Nosler Partition, you have the right bullet, and if you keep the shot under 200 yards, you have the right range for good penetration. The light .22 projectile doesn't have a lot of energy after 100 yards and loses it fast as it travels further. This is data for a Federal Fusion 55 gr bullet from a 24" barrel, which is an acceptable choice for deer. The numbers are for muzzle to 500 yards. Velocity Energy Muzz 100 200 300 400 500 / Muzz 100 200 300 400 500 3600 3108 2667 2267 1902 1580 1583 1179 869 627 442 305 With these limitations in mind, it is still important to understand the bullet does not leave a large wound channel, especially past 100 yards, and doesn't do a lot of damage when the velocity slows below 2500 fps. Therefore, bullet placement is critical. Hunting deer with a .22-250 is for experts if the shots are not close. I would equate using it for deer to using a .410 for skeet, and you don't expect to be as successful with a .410 when shooting skeet. It's a challenge to use a .22-250 for deer, but you have to remember you are shooting at a live animal that will suffer a lot if you aren't up to it.

The Biden administration is strategically spreading them around the country, planting them in red state, heavily republican districts. The goal is to put enough of them into these districts to win future elections with their votes after they are all granted amnesty. This has been the left's plan ever since they started pushing for an open border. This is why they hated everything Trump did to put a stop to it.

"We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people." —John F. Kennedy (1917-1963)

Now Biden has issued flight restrictions to cover it all up. This administration is not putting Americans first. https://www.westernjournal.com/biden-admin-issues-flight-restrictions-border-crossing-civilian-drone-captures-horrifying-reality/?utm_source=Email&utm_medium=CTBreaking&utm_campaign=breaking&utm_content=conservative-tribune&ats_es=b7a42290cbf1e4f7f87c731604a39bb0

I have to laugh at how many dedicated haters I have on this forum. None of them ever seem to address anything I post other than to say they hate everything I post. I'm amused by how easily they are triggered and their ad hominem replies, which they always resort to when they cannot refute my posts with an intelligent counter argument. They're truly indoctrinated and refuse to listen to any opposing opinions, just like they were indoctrinated to do. They seem to find it easier to think what they're told to think. No matter how many times I've offered to debate them on any issue they would like to debate, they always resort to insults and avoid any intellectual discussions. Then they claim the high ground and moral superiority. This is typical of the minions on the left. They believe they are morally superior because they are told by their handlers they are. This is where the division in this country comes from. Closed minded people who cannot intelligently see any issue from the other side and discuss the advantages and disadvantages of their position, will never unite with anyone they disagree with. Worse yet, they will attack them personally and vilify everything and anything they say or do, in an attempt to influence others to disqualify what they are proposing. There are no witches on this forum, but there are many who are saying there are.

People who find they must bribe politicians have come to understand they sometimes can't accomplish anything under a corrupt government unless they do. The real question is, who is demanding bribes and why are they not prosecuted when they take them? The government tried to go after Bill Gates and break up Microsoft because he refused to play their bribery game. They never expected he would spend 10 times what they demanded to fight them, and win. And to assume all billionaires dishonestly earned their wealth, is proof you have swallowed that leftist lie.

Lefty, you failed to notice only one of those posts is mine, they all just got a reply from me that day, and one day in May doesn't make your case. But I will give you an A for effort seeing how much work you had to do to find that one day. Weren't you one of the people who encouraged all of the Trump witch hunts?