bluecoupe

I'll bow out but it would help if she would have identified exactly what she took exception to. I still do not feel as if I was rude and if what I pointed out is considered rude on this group then I should just leave now. If someone states something I disagree with it seems fair game to have an open discussion about it. If that's too much for this group then I definitely do not belong here.

If that's directed toward me, I apologize if you interpreted my replies as being rude. That certainly was not the intent. I took exception to some statements made and laid out the facts to backup why I too exception to it. I don't consider that rude but if you do, I apologize.

My statements had nothing to do with that observation. My point wastoward the attitude presented that some people here can't identify animals, period. Based on the pictures and evidence, or lack thereof, that seemed to be awfully self-centered and unjustifiable opinions.

1) it's dark 2) the picture is not definitive 3) there is no physical evidence 4) there are varied opinions by people who are obviously experienced in the outdoors 5) you have no way to prove that your opinion is the right one beyond any doubt How can you pass judgement on people given those conditions? You could reasonably say that you *think* it's an "xyz" but until you can prove it, which you obviously can't, that position seems to be rather elitist. I'm not trying to start anything with anyone but sheesh....

Friend of mine is stationed at Fort Drum in Watertown and they had the honor of being the coldest place in the continental US yesterday at -39dF. I don't know what the windchill was.

DVR set - thanks!

12/22 - dated but I wouldn't call it "old". It was the first I'd seen of it and I suspect I'm not alone. I agree with you though, the issue is the "IF we can get them to the polls" clause...

I kid about it but even 35 years ago when I had mine done, there was very little discomfort. Oh, I wasn't going to run any marathon or anything but wearing the support and taking things easily resulted in little, if any pain. Don't fret it man, and like I said, things have to of gotten better in the last 35 years.

That's when guys emulate the brass monkey on the right side of the picture I posted in the "It's cold" thread. (edit: myself included) The dr told me when I had mine done that if I turned any more white he wouldn't be able to find me in the sheets.

By the time it becomes reality, it'd be too late. The idiots need to be stopped now. We have to get just as vocal, if not more than these ridiculous idiots. Getting people motivated and off their butts and to the polls is our only hope.

This man and his cronies REALLY need to go http://www.examiner.com/article/new-york-governor-confiscation-of-guns-could-be-an-option The Second Amendment clearly says that the right to keep and bear arms "shall not be infringed," but New York Governor Andrew M. Cuomo, a Democrat, said that confiscation of guns from law-abiding citizens "could be an option" when the state legislature debates new gun control measures next month, The Blaze reported Friday. “Confiscation could be an option. Mandatory sale to the state could be an option. Permitting could be an option — keep your gun but permit it," he told an Albany radio station late in the week. According to The Blaze, Cuomo plans to propose a gun control package in his Jan. 9 State of the State address. “There’s a big difference of opinion on these issues,” he told Albany’s WGDJ-AM. “I don’t think legitimate sportsmen are going to say, ‘I need an assault weapon to go hunting,’” he said. But the Washington Examiner's Timothy P. Carney says "there’s no real definition" of the term "assault weapon." "First, all guns can be used to assault someone – even a muzzle-loading black-powder rifle," he wrote. "Second, Congressional attempts to define this term were laughably ad hoc," he added. "Calling a dog's tail a fifth leg does not change the tail, any more than calling a gun an 'assault weapon' changes its basic function," Thomas M. Moncure, Jr. wrote at the Howard Law Journal. Cuomo told WGDJ that he owns a shotgun and regularly hunts with it. “There is a balance here — I understand the rights of gun owners; I understand the rights of hunters,” he said. But the Second Amendment was not intended to simply protect the rights of hunters. In Federalist Paper 46, James Madison wrote that the Constitution preserves "the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe," Noah Webster wrote in 1787. "The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive," he added. In short, the Second Amendment was designed to keep the government from becoming tyrannical, not just secure rights for hunters. Since the tragic shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary school in Newtown, Conn., liberals have sought to politicize the tragedy to advance an anti-gun and anti-freedom agenda. Liberal politicians, aided by the Democrat-media complex, have attacked the Second Amendment claiming that all crime would stop if guns ceased to exist. Historically, gun bans have never worked as criminals, by definition, do not follow the law. While Cuomo did not offer specific measures he would advance, the fact that he would suggest confiscation of guns from law-abiding citizens should be a wake-up call to every freedom-loving American.

And for some, it is. Sold our property in the southern ADKs last year in prep for getting the h*77 outta here. Cheaper property other places anyhow

Probably got things out of the way though for the Dr....

You're probably correct in your case and you seem like if it weren't a safe situation even if it were legal, you'd be intelligent enough to not do it. The problem is, if the law says 50 yards, there will be mental rejects that will be hunting in highly residential areas just because the law says they can, irrespective of safety concerns. Some people just have zero common sense.

LOL, nothing to it. Had mine about 35 years ago and I'm sure things have improved a LOT since then. The needle part is a bit scarey but otherwise.. nada