Grouse

Good article on how to score when the Toms won't talk to you. Turkeys are finicky animals; there’s a good chance by the following morning or with a subtle change of temperature or maybe just a change of heart, gobblers will begin gobbling like crazy and dying to run straight into your call. https://www.americanhunter.org/articles/2021/3/25/6-strategies-for-hunting-silent-gobblers?fbclid=IwAR0YkvjD-XzINjo737l_8FnYK5Q-dkw-AAxt7ABuCbNQ4SS9175fPmktEro

Violent crimes against Asian Americans, it isn’t being perpetrated by white supremacists — or whites generally. As Robert Cherry writes in The Spectator, “Using FBI statistics, I computed black and white perpetrators of hate crimes as a percentage of men 18 to 44 years old in their populations. The black rate was 40 percent, 76 percent, and 303 percent higher than the white rate for hate crimes against the Asian/Pacific Island, Latino, and LGBTQ communities respectively. Even more troubling, black rates for hate-crime assaults were 94 percent higher while for property destruction and vandalism, they were 14 percent lower than white rates.” So the increase in hate crimes against Asian Americans, and the group most responsible for it is most likely another minority group, Black Americans. But, yeah, other than that, the vile narrative being foisted upon us by the Left is accurate.

They are telling the truth. That is the job of Communist propaganda media.

Data indicates most hate crimes against Asians are committed by blacks. The media is trying to make the public believe it comes from "white supremacists" and has something to do with the virus. That's a false narrative. Just more leftist propaganda against white people.

When dealing with the federal government, experience doesn’t just add nuance to an understanding of the system. Often, interactions with the federal bureaucracy harden earned cynicism. "You’ll soon see more on what Lott was trying to accomplish in the DOJ and how so much of our tax money is funneled to research designed to give the mainstream media talking points to push for more restrictions on our Second Amendment rights. This political favoritism and gaming of the system is important to bring up now, as the Biden administration is beginning to use the bureaucracy to impact our rights in many ways." https://www.americas1stfreedom.org/articles/2021/3/24/the-federal-behemoth-and-your-rights/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=insider&utm_campaign=0321

Good video on this subject that explains exactly what the government is doing.

No. No right is unlimited. But on the other hand, no right has been infringed upon as much as the 2nd A has either.

I never felt the Cliff Notes version of things really educated anyone though. Besides, someone may tell you to prove it.

If nothing else, you could have them prosecuted for littering no matter what the trespassing laws say.

Most of the year mine is shallow and 6 feet across, but the spring melt brings it up high and 10 feet across. You could go down it at that time in a canoe or kayak if you had a death wish.

A lot of the Beaverkill is posted and it's right along side of a public road.

Well, this was already ruled on by the SCOTUS in the D.C v. Heller case. It ruled the right to bear arms is an individual right. It was the first Supreme Court case to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense or if the right was intended for state militias. It is no surprise though the left doesn't respect the decision, because it doesn't respect the rule of law. There are plenty of documents and info in the Federalist papers written by the founders that extraneously explain exactly what they intended to codify in the 2nd Amendment, an any interpretation not in line with their intent is simply wrong. Like the late Justice Scalia pronounced, "The Constitution is a legal document. It says what it says and doesn't say what it doesn't say." It is corruption of the document to try and infer it means other than exactly what it says. And if it no longer meets the needs of the 21st century, the founder's genius installed a legal way to go about amending it. Any other way of altering that document is unconstitutional. The left knows the odds of success for them following the legal way are slim, so they strive to convince the gullible another way is needed. That's criminal.

Getting back to the original gist of this thread, more of my opinion, adopted from Josh Hammer. The Constitution (with its Second Amendment so cherished by gun owners like me), John Adams once famously said, was “made only for a moral and religious people” and is “wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” The paradigmatic conservative Edmund Burke similarly once argued that “men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains upon their own appetites.” Alas, Americans in the year 2021 can be said to be neither a “moral and religious people” nor particularly well disposed to putting “moral chains upon their own appetites.” To be sure, gun restrictions are generally still bad public policy due to reasons both intrinsic — criminals do not, by definition, abide by laws — and pragmatic — in a country with more guns than citizens, an Australia-style “buyback” program would be infeasible to the point of absurdity, even if it were not blatantly unconstitutional. But the very rhetorical and intellectual currency of our firearm policy discourse has become woefully debased over the decades. At the time of the American founding, gun ownership was not merely viewed as a check on government tyranny and a logical outflow of the natural, common-law right to self-defense. It was also viewed as virtuous: something that was, can and ought to be deployed to protect one’s family, one’s home and one’s community. In this sense, a well-armed citizenry was not simply an outgrowth of any particular natural or legal right; rather, it was viewed as fundamentally just and redounding to the common good of a well-functioning, internally harmonious society. The reader here will conjure up images of frontiersmen and homesteaders protecting one’s remote home with a flintlock musket — and there is a lot of accuracy to the early- to mid-republic authenticity of those images. But when is the last time anyone, even a conservative, has made an affirmative argument in favor of gun ownership based not on constitutional meaning or contextual prudence but on the inherent virtue of gun ownership? The long, steady decline of this once-prevalent school of thought is certainly due, in part, to the hollowing out of America’s religiosity and temperance. But it is also due to the fact that manliness itself is increasingly viewed not as a virtue to be nourished and cherished but as a “toxic” vestige of a bygone barbarism that must be tamed and ultimately excised. A society that loses its belief in the importance of manliness qua manliness will necessarily fail to appreciate the virtue of a home- and hearth-protecting paterfamilias. There is a direct, unmistakable connection between the decline of the former and a lessened respect for the latter. Our firearm policy discourse is hackneyed and wearisome, but if progressives continue to push for confiscatory over corrections, then conservatives must continue to trot out familiar arguments against draconian strictures. Conservatives’ job would certainly be easier, though, if our society still retained the intellectual currency of yore.

I guess she's just crazy, right? "Democrats want to do to AR-15s what they did to drugs. Which is to create black markets for them, increase crime, empower cartels/gangs & make criminals out of nonviolent people — the process of which costs our justice system billions & prevents real crime from being solved." —Hannah Cox

Nonsense? Shit? Obviously you are not up on current events then.

Lefty, you sure got bent out of shape about one incidental post that must threaten your perception that govt is your friend, or your big brother than defends you from all comers after you poke them with a stick. I will continue to post what I want and freely express my opinions no matter how many want to dog me with hate mail. I am who I am. I never said you had to like me. I don't care what you think about me. I don't think about you at all.

I don't argue. I educate.

Bears were sought after for many uses historically. If you were eating meat at a table it was likely bear and they rendered down bear fat to use as oil to burn in lamps, a protectant for leather and metal, etc.