virgil

i'd be the first the defend a moron's right to speak his mind. and, sorry, i'm not gonna pack up and leave. you're just gonna have to get used to the fact that the world is evolving- and the laws need to as well. the point is, again, it's just sad and disappointing that people still have such antiquated and antisocial beliefs. and, as far as the laws in germany- i believe they do have limits againts speech intended to threaten or defame any particular ethnic groups. that actually seems pretty enlightened to me. seems like a good example of laws reflecting the current needs of society. can't have that now can we?

i don't care whether you believe the 'hat story' or not- it happened. and, i wasn't trying in any way to imply that that guy's beliefs are anyone else's. the point was that this is the impression that the general public will take away and associate with everyone else at that event. as steve said, these types of things, along with anti-government rants and clinging to antisocial 'gun rights' are why we as hunters are perceived as a bunch of dangerous crackpots by the public.

i never said or implied that the legislators would serve as the 'experts'- again, knee-jerk paranoia. it's common practice in business, medicine, law, etc., to bring in objective experts as consultants before decisions are made. and, i understand that not everyone hunts and that many like to shoot at the range. either way, it's not unreasonable for the law to limit ownership of weapons that are deemed to be too dangerous- same as they do for controlled substances. i've never been to a range that allows more than a single shell at a time- maybe that's just a local thing here. i've also never felt overburdened for having to reload between shots at the range. my sarcasm is not a defense mechanism, it's sincere. and, i've not been the first to start the name-calling. as soon as i interrupted the anti-government, anti-'righty', anti-anti rants on this thread, i was attacked and labeled left-wing, liberal, non-patriot, etc. so, try not to be so sensitive.

i have no problem backing up my position. you're just so brainwashed and paranoid, you can't imagine that someone can feel differently than you. you guys are a joke. quoting literature from two hundred years ago to back up your argument only shows how antiquated and backward your thinking is. and real brave labeling anyone with a different position as a 'traitor' or non-patriot. that's very american, mrs. palin. i'm sure it works well on all the other small minded paranoids. this ridiculous mindset is why hunters have a bad reputation. as an example, i was at a DU dinner last night and saw a guy wearing a hat with the confederate flag on it and the words 'mighty whitey'. made me nauseous.

muzzy- waterfowling is state governed. it's actually pretty regional. there are some different seasons and bag limits in different areas of the state.

nys regulates how many shells we can have in our shotguns for waterfowl hunting. don't remember for sure, but i'd assume there are similar rules regarding big game. so, i can't imagine any reason why we'd need any capacity greater than the hunting laws allow.

i haven't been trying to avoid answering the calibur/capacity question. i'm not an expert on the subject. but, if/when the time comes for legislation, i would want to be sure that there are objective experts weighing in on the subject. now, i know that all the paranoids will have a field day with that one. let me guess, the big bad government is gonna bring in a bunch of bogus 'experts' just so they can pass legislation to take away your guns and your hunting rights, right?

wny. now you're boring me. what's your point?

bpb- so, what is your point? the constitution was never intended to be an exhaustive list of our rights. that's why we have an entire court system whose role is to interpret the consititution. and, what is so wrong with restrictions and regulations? these are the things that allow for a civilized society. individual states have different definitions and different laws regarding thousands of issues. what's your point. as far as your last 'point', i don't even know where to start. you're upset with anti-gun people/lawmakers and pro-gun people also- you lost me here. i think the term 'pro-gun' is where the problem starts. what would be so wrong with 'pro-common sense'? how do you all feel about tanks? should anyone with a drivers license and a wide driveway be allowed to own one? how about fighter jets? or cruise missiles? how far from common sense are you willing to stray to 'protect your rights'?

don't take it personally, i usually don't pay attention to zealots. actually, you only asked once. anyway, my definition of an assault weapon would be one whose calibur or capacity exceed the reasonable needs for hunting purposes. and, thanks for clarifying what 'opinion' means- i don't need google to help me form an opinion.

WNY- what question are you referring to?

and paranoia negates intelligence.

darwinism refers to survival of the fittest, not the loudest and most paranoid.

really, what are you all so afraid of? how can you be talking about the government and the military attacking it's own people? there has never been any such suggestion by any sane person. this is fear mongering at it's most dangerous. and, 'freedom' doesn't mean that you can do absolutely anything that you want- that's lawlessness, anarchy. we live in a civilized society, and that means that we should be expected to abide by laws meant to protect the general public, and that's what gun laws are intended to do. freedom means personal sacrifice. we have police to protect us and our families. we don't need assault rifles. do you really think that your home is going to be invaded by any person or group so heavily armed that a 12 gague or 30-06 won't be enough to protect you? has any state made any effort to take away any sportsman's hunting rifles? if so, i haven't heard of it.

2brknot, i think you've gone off the tracks again. not sure what you're referring to-because i don't use what? an assault rifle? who do i need to assault? you're quick to label me a 'leftist' because i don't want to overthrow the government to 'protect' my rights. i just don't have any irrational fears that anyone is trying to take away my hunting rifles and shotguns. get a grip. you're probably just a gun-loving racist who's pissed off because there is a man of color in the white house. your obvious paranoia prevents you from considering that anyone should be allowed to have a different view than yours; and makes you quick to question the patriotism or intelligence of sensible gun owners and sportsmen who don't feel the need to carry a gun or sleep with one under our pillows when we're not in the woods hunting (or working on our manifesto in your case).

i've been a gun owner and hunter since i was 16 years old. i'm not a gun nut who makes believe that our government has any plans to 'take away our guns'- as so many of you like to say to rile each other up. the truth is that there is no sporting purpose for anyone private citizen to own assault weapons. using the constitution to support your agenda is silly. the consitution was and is a brilliant document. however, it reflects the needs of society at the time it was written. it has been amended many time since it was first written, and with good reason. it scares me to see so many guys on this website post paranoid rants about 'leftists' wanting to take away gun rights- this is one reason why hunters have gotten a bad reputation. as far as kids being punished for playing with nerf toys, that's just as ridiculous. but, try putting yourself in the position of school officials who are entrusted with our kids safety. then, try to imagine the position they'd be in if any harm came to a child on their watch. would any of the gun-nuts hesitate to contact a lawyer if their child was hurt at school by a toy or object that could be perceived as a weapon. i doubt it. i believe that the term 'logical' means that both sides of an argument have been considered before a decision or law is made. it's easy and hypocritical to bash people who don't share your agenda.

i've been fishing in connetquot since i was a kid. there wouldn't really be anything sporting about hunting there or in hecksher. at either park, you could hunt with a hammer. from what i've heard over the years, the turkey population in connetquot was decimated by growth in the fox population. there used to be a few peacocks that roamed around in connetquot- they got wiped out, too. i grew up in the area and have always heard rumors of guys poaching in and around these parks.

i bought my land through an agent that worked for them. his name was matt ward. i didn't have any interaction with anyone else in the agency. only saw his listings. he was excellent- very helpful- even helped put in a couple of permanent tree stands.

i'm heading up tonight to hunt tomorrow. any update on the weather or how much snow is on the ground? has anyone been seeing anything in the woods?

thanks a lot for the info. i'm heading up friday and will be hunting saturday. hoping for some good conditions.

ok, thanks for the info. maybe i'll check with you again next week before i head up. thanks again.

my place is in cortland county, near the tuller hill state forest. i'm planning to go up there next weekend to hunt with the ml. can anyone tell me how much snow we've gotten?

i have a green key. where do you buy the permit. thanks.

if you guys don't mind me asking, what park properties are you referring to in manorville. do you need to sign in there, or can you just park anywhere and walk in?

culver creek. thanks and good luck to you too. we've seen bucks- and a good few rubs. my partner missed an eight pointer last year and i have plenty of trail cam photos of some decent bucks, mostly younger looking bucks. i passed on a few young bucks and does last year. i'm in virgil, exit 10 off 81.