steve863

It may have been staged, but open carry is legal in some states. To me it's simply lunacy whichever way you choose to do it.

My boss just handed me this for Christmas. Seems a bit fancy and high tech for old fashioned me, but I'll take them. http://shop.randolphusa.com/ranger-falcon-pro-kit-p5929.aspx

If a society like ours finds it completely acceptable for people to be walking around department stores armed to the teeth then we honestly have a society that is very seriously screwed up. You guys can flame away to your hearts content, you surely won't be changing my opinion about it, that's for damned sure.

This is only a guess, but maybe they put them on private land because they could find more fields and open spaces on private land in comparison to state land that might be more wooded?? I would also imagine that one could get access to private land at a lower cost than paying a money hungry state like NY. There's always someone desperate privately that's willing to allow use of their land for little to nothing. NY would probably charge a windmill or fracking company thru the nose for the use of it's land, thus they rather go the private route.

I just got this PM's to me by another forum member here that was too embarrassed to ask himself. I think we can all tell what he wants. LOL

Just for the record, I for one would have NO problem with voter ID's.

I am not the overly religious of sort, but it does boggle my mind that the true meaning of Christmas is not even known to so many people out there these days. To them it's just a jolly holiday that you are supposed to spend money and buy gifts for others, and that's ALL they know about it. Unbelievable really.

Then they should use arguments like yours, and not make comparisons between cars and guns, or hammers and guns. Using such comparisons is idiotic. You guys do FAIL to address the high murder rate with firearms in this country, however. This is what keeps the anti-gunners on the attack. You keep sweeping it under the rug, and they continue to use the numbers. Numbers that are off the charts compared to any other civilized nation. Making claims that things as simple as background checks are a waste of time will not win many over to our side. No background checks are not foolproof, but what is these days? You guys claim that it's a right, but rights do come with responsibilities. You don't want to give in to the simplest of safeguards, so the other side continues to attack. What can I tell you guys then? You make your beds, so you need to sleep in them. I only point things out.

Says the guy who has a pic of Pope Francis on his avatar!

So some don't want to shoot spikes, others don't want to shoot the 2.5 year olds, why don't we just let them live out their lives and die of old age? This is all so stupid to me. I shoot what I have tags for and what walks out in front of me. This is all BS that a deer needs to be x years old before it gets gunned down. Makes absolutely NO difference in the scheme of things.

Health and happiness for me and my family and friends, and peace on earth. Material things I can get whenever I want or need them.

Read all the posts and maybe you will get it. It was a post in a string of responses I made to post 109. Comparing cars to guns is as lame as it gets. If gun owners can't come up with better examples to defend their reasons for owning them, then we are really in trouble.

Oh I could give a rats ass about you, VJP, that's for darned sure! We should ask for a show of hands of the others here who also think that you are nuts. LOL

A citizen who passes a background check to own firearms can own one for whatever reason they desire.

Now you are twisting it to AR rifles. Where the HELL did I mention AR rifles in my initial post? I said FIREARMS, which means any and ALL FIREARMS. You are the challenged individual here by trying to twist BS any which way to try to make a point. There definitely has to be some psychological diagnosis for such behavior! So tell me again, do hammers outnumber firearms in the FBI murder stat I posted? Anxiously awaiting the next twist! LOL

My post 121 applies to you to.

I was not talking about self defense, only about murders by firearms. You can take up that discussion with someone else, for that was not the point I was bringing up.

Yeah, and that outnumbers the guns?? Dude, what in God's name is wrong with you?? You have the stats right in your face and you are still twisting and turning your BS.

VJP, you are simply amazing!! Leave it up to you to pull things out of your butt to support your nonsense. Please show me the hammers on this FBI list?? LOL http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8 And NO, I am not supporting a handgun ban, only telling you the FACTS about what is used in the majority of murders.

Yeah, go ahead and check it out. We've been thru this exercise before on this forum.

The sick piece of crap will, but there are plenty of others who would not have the intestinal fortitude to do it with a knife, club, or any other more hands on methods. Using a gun is the easiest way, and you can walk away with no blood on your hands. As I said before, that's why firearms are #1.

Very poor analogy. You will never win anyone over with stuff like that. Those killing people with firearms for the most part had intent, while those killing people with cars for the most part did not. I for one will NEVER be convinced that one couldn't kill human beings way quicker with firearms, than with anything else that is easily available to the general public. Not arguing the 2nd amendment or the NRA here, only that it's just stupid to say that one can kill people just as easily with some other object. There's a reason that the majority of murders are with firearms(stats prove this out). That's because they are the most efficient at getting the job done.

I never said they couldn't kill deer. The question is why would I use an inferior caliber, when I can use a superior one? The recoil argument to me is a silly one. If you can shoot a .243, there's NO reason why you couldn't shoot a .270 just as well. Felt recoil is all in the head. I can see a magnum caliber being a little too much for some shooters, but thinking that a .243 is so much less punishing than a .270 is ridiculous. I know which one I'd give to a beginning hunter. I prefer a bit more thump on the animal they are trying to bring down, than worrying about that little extra thump on their shoulders. That's how I see thing, anyway.

With any luck this thread will turn into a 14 page argument on whether the .223 should be LEGAL for deer or not!

Probably is hunter related to an extent, but if it were ONLY hunter related, you'd have just as many or MORE F-ups with the bigger calibers, since in general I think most people that would go on a guided hunt would carry something more potent than a .243 for deer.