steve863

Mountain lions can get up a tree pretty high when hunted with dogs, so I don't find it amazing at all that he got over that fence. If a cat can get up a tree, I don't think a seven foot fence is going to hold him in. If he couldn't jump it, he'd probably claw his way up a post and then go over.

Jeez, I remember you telling us how much you loved your old place? Don't remember hearing about all the trespassing and headaches, though. I guess $1500 and acre for 350 acres can change ones opinions real fast!!! LOL

I guess it wouldn't be impossible, but most deer get born later in May and more likely early June.

It wouldn't surprise me in the least. Plenty of people don't have a pot to pee in, yet they have to have the latest and greatest of any contraption that is in vogue.

These two paragraphs mirror my views. To me it seems like many enjoy the ATV riding way MORE than the hunting during deer season. Why do they need to wait for hunting season to joy ride those things? It doesn't make any sense. They can ride them anytime of the year. I can understand owning ATV's if you live upstate. I can see how they can be useful for various chores, but to me it's a complete joke when I see people hauling them upstate from downstate for a quick weekend hunt. Like they are absolutely necessary? No way. Most people don't hunt too far off into the woods, so to haul these things on two, three, four hour drives is downright ridiculous. Lets not even get into storing them in your garage or backyard where they take up a good amount of space the rest of the year for only those 3 or 4 weekends they get used. As someone else mentioned all these ATV's are, are expensive toys that people just have to have because they've been brainwashed into thinking that it's a must have item for hunting.

Lazy hunters? I wish I had a dollar for every 250lbs + hunter I've seen in my life. Cabelas probably sells considerably more garments in XXXL than they do in Medium size. I've seen a good many of these big sized boys ride the 200 yards to their stands on their ATV's instead of walking it. So you guys can tell me if these fellas should be considered lazy or not?

Oh, and even if we adopted the Canadian immigration policy, how would it stop most of these skilled immigrants who come in to take jobs from American I/T type workers from coming in? Most who come in to take these jobs are college educated, speak English, already have job offers from American corporations, so there would be virtually NOTHING to disqualify them from coming in even if we adopted the Canadian rules.

mmkay, I am not arguing with you. Capitalism has always had the "greed" element within it, so I think things have just gotten worse over the years. You have CEO's making millions and millions, while they rather pay two immigrants a salary that one American low level employee used to get. There is definitely something wrong with this "greed" mentality of American corporations and capitalism, but what solutions are there to fix it? I surely never said that it was perfect or totally fair. Stopping most of the immigration that is happening will just get corporations to send the jobs completely out of this country like has happened with a lot of manufacturing and customer service departments. Hell, I call Verizon up for some problems with my fios line outside my house in NY and I am talking with someone in the Philippines. Unbelievable! Even more people will end up losing jobs in this country if entire offices and plants are shut down because now EVERY job is being sent elsewhere because immigrants are no longer allowed to come in. It's a tough situation, but one that won't easily be solved.

How is the immigrant labor different today, than it was when the railroads were being built with the Chinese and Irish? Or immigrants being used to work in PA coal mines? Immigrant labor has always been an important fabric of this nation. America touts the virtues of capitalism, and capitalisms goal is to make profits. Immigrant labor has always been cheaper thus it gets utilized. If you complain about immigrants getting the jobs over native born Americans, then you are against capitalism and for what this country has stood for for a long time now. You may not like it, but that's the way it works. I guess socialism and communism could be alternatives, but most here probably wouldn't want that either.

Well, there would be a good many people on this forum that would accuse me of being a liberal for my opinions on guns and how I don't think everyone should own whatever they damned well please, but I will tell you one thing that surely won't endear me to any liberals. Before anyone starts claiming all these obstacles that black people might have, I want someone to tell me who makes up the vast majority of prisoners in American jails? Now how did they get there? Did they all get put there by mistaken identity or just because people of other races wanted to put them there? You see that there is one mighty BIG obstacle that black people have, and it surely wasn't created by anyone else but themselves. The perception of the other races is that you are taking a much greater risk when they hire a black person over one of another race for a number of reasons. I really would like to hear those people who don't think this perception is a valid one, to disprove it? Are the rioters in Baltimore doing anything to disprove it? Are people like Al Sharpton doing anything to disprove it? Are the blacks who have been on welfare for generations and not done anything to get themselves off doing anything to disprove any perception? Is it just all a white conspiracy against blacks? You guys can tell me. All I know is that my parents were immigrants who came to this country with one suitcase. They were not college educated yet valued education very much, had a hard time with the language in their early years after arriving, yet they were able to buy a house of their own, raise two kids and put them thru college and had the comforts of what could be considered middle class comforts. They were able to do this without any public assistance whatsoever and they did this all in a span of 20 or so years. Why could they do it, while many blacks who have been here for generations haven't? Again, you guys can try to tell me if you want, I'm all ears, but I can assure you that the reasons are NOT skin color alone.

I would agree that the disparity between the rich and middle class is growing, BUT you can still live very comfortably in the middle class and a person could get there by hard work. Typically things don't just fall into anyones lap. They need to work for it. Even the education you talk about. Education is there for people and it's free thru the end of high school and even thru college for those in financial need. It starts in the home with parents who value education. If you have parents who don't give a crap, then you have children who don't either. That's what you typically have with these people who complain that they are not given any opportunities. If you just floundered your way thru school and don't have any discipline in your life, most likely you will never be impressing any employers. Those who work hard can make it, while those who are not willing to don't. What is unfair about that? I myself don't see anything unfair. As far as overusing credit, this again begins at home. No school can teach you this. If you have parents who are materialistic and just have to have the latest and greatest of everything whether they have the money for it or not, then you have children who turn out the same. Like they say, apples don't fall too far from the trees.

One would think that since we have a black president in office, race relations would be at an all time high? Doesn't look that way, does it? Honestly, I am sick an tired of Obama's back-handed swipes at law enforcement. Yesterday, he called these Baltimore rioters "criminals and thugs" and then he proceeded to take swipes at law enforcement as he typically does. This is BS in it's highest form. As president he needs to back law enforcement of the land and NOT bash it. This is just giving more fuel to these rioting idiots to continue doing this crap. He can't get out of office fast enough in my opinion.

I very much agree. And if anyone has the edge as a puncher in this fight it would be Pacquiao. I think the vast majority of people interested in this fight want Pacquiao to win. It would be great. I do think the odds are that it will go the distance, however. Most people think that a decision would go to Mayweather, but don't be too sure. The promoters would love to see a rematch that would gross as much as this fight or more, so the chances for a rematch would be better if Pacquiao be given the decision and NOT Mayweather. If Mayweather would win a close decision he would NEVER give Pacquiao another chance at him. He wouldn't have the guts. The ultimate scenario would be for Pacquiao to win by knockout and then retire and never to give Mayweather a rematch. Boy would that piss him off good! Pacman could practically buy the Philippines with the money he's earned and live happily ever after.

They probably saw signs saying "Buffalo" on a Thruway entrance so they went that way.

Where did I call for disarming all citizens? All I would want is some stinking uniformity in the gun laws of this nation. This would not solve ALL gun crime, but it would be a step in the right direction. We don't need NY's SAFE act, but we don't need NO laws either. You guys ever wonder where the guns that are used in Chicago, Detroit and DC were obtained since these cities have strict gun laws? What good are those strict gun laws when one can walk over into a neighboring state and buy whatever they want with NO questions asked? Oh yeah, I forgot you guys get offended when someone wants you to submit to a background check before you are allowed to purchase a gun, so why am I even asking you?? You'll tell me that it's a violation of your constitutional right! LOL

Sorry, but I will refuse to live in the paranoia that someone is waiting out there in the shadows to get me. I have known plenty of people in my life, and NOT one of them was ever put in a situation where they needed a gun to get themselves or their child out alive. Maybe some of you live in some seedy ghettos, I don't know, but these type of situations don't occur very often in the locations I frequent so I'll be damned if I will lose sleep over such nonsense.

Yes it would, but should everyone walk around armed at all times for the small percentage likelihood of being attacked or robbed? If I was carrying a gun and in the company of my child would I get into a shoot out with an idiot or two just because they wanted the few bucks I had in my wallet? I know the choice I'd make. If you think you'd be the victor in such a confrontation and that NO harm could possibly happen to your child than you can go ahead and take your chances. I will play it safe. What's in my wallet is NOT worth my child's life or even my own.

Well Doc, I won't argue with you about the effectiveness of ANY firearm when it comes to killing people, because they surely are ALL effective. That's why they are the #1 choice of murderers everywhere. It makes killing a hell of a lot easier than if you had to strangle, stab or club someone to death.

Fair enough I do realize that our population is way more than Germany and most European countries, but so is Germany's over Luxembourg which has only 550,000 residents. So if you are discounting comparisons of the US to Germany than you also need to discount what they claim in the article below. "Contrast that with Luxembourg, “where handguns are totally banned and ownership of any kind of gun is minimal, had a murder rate nine times higher than Germany in 2002." Comparing a population of 550K to 80M is not exactly apples to apples either.

I refer to YOU guys as those who can't handle any form of gun control, even something as simple as background checks. Plenty of hunters and gun owners that are not as paranoid as you and don't think that ALL laws pertaining to gun ownership will lead to total confiscation. In fact I would say that the majority of hunters and gun owners don't. So you can call us stupid if and when you ever see total confiscation.

Why don't they start comparing the gun murder rate of the US to those other European countries where there is significant gun ownership and not only Luxenbourg or Russia which have had increased crime rates for a good while now? All those other European countries mentioned in this article have gun control measures significantly stricter than here in the US. You guys would be bitching up a storm if you had to go thru what they do there to own firearms. And guess what? Their murder rates are less than half of what they are here. Murder rate per 100,000 Norway 2.2 Finland 1.6 Germany 0.8 France 1.0 USA 4.7

Sure looks like this dude is inflicting some traumatic brain injuries on himself firing away like that with that shotgun! LOL Firing an AR or semi-auto pistol won't produce nearly as much recoil and he can reload in an instant. Arguments about this kind of stuff will never end here when today you are comparing a shotgun to an AR and tomorrow I will be told that cars, hammers, pressure cookers can kill as many people too. The FACTS are that firearms of ALL fashions are used in the majority of murders in this country and there is NO denying that.

I agree with you that these other interests are very important if not as important as the revenue coming to the state from deer license sales. This only adds to deer hunting being untouchable for a good long time.

No, I am not saying that all new hunters should only deer hunt. I am saying that most new hunters DO get into hunting because they want to hunt DEER first and foremost. You can do the math yourself. No way that waterfowl, pheasant or dove hunters add up to as many as deer hunters. And YES, not having private land to hunt has a detrimental effect on a deer hunter. I've seen plenty of people give up hunting because they couldn't find other private land to hunt. Especially as they've aged and don't have the time to spend looking for new spots. I don't see any of these people hunting waterfowl, pheasants or doves as a substitute either.

I definitely don't agree that a pump or semi shotgun with buckshot would be as effective. You can fire off way more with an AR or semi-auto pistol and be able to carry and reload a whole lot more ammo also. You guys keep pounding on the point that first it would be AR's, next would be the Rem 7400, but I have always said that without some sort of compromise they WILL take everything away from us. Without compromise their is nothing in a friendship, marriage, you name it. Some of you think we've compromised too much already, but that's because many of you can't accept ANY gun control whatsoever. At least some uniformity in the freaking gun laws that we have in this country would be a start. What freaking good is NY's SAFE act when someone can easily purchase anything they want down south? Makes NO sense at all.