Rattler

Most likely. Shotguns would shoot too far and the noise would scare the locals. But the deer in SINY would be quite easy to take with a bow as they have very little fear of humans.

August 17, 2019 The New York Post reported last week that on Staten Island, N.Y., a three-year $4.1 million deer vasectomy program was in a rut. White Buffalo, the wildlife-management group that conducted white-tailed deer reduction programs in Mt. Lebanon, was hired in 2016 to control the borough’s whitetails. The deer population estimate is 2,053 — an 8,454% increase in less than a decade — yet many citizens continued to oppose a cull. Nearly 1,580 bucks were neutered in the world’s first program to curb deer by sterilizing only males. White Buffalo announced that the Staten Island deer count had dropped by 316 animals. “That means taxpayers have spent $12,975 a head to shave 15% off the huge herd,” wrote The Post. White Buffalo is attempting to negotiate a five-year $2.5 million extension to its contract, the paper reported. James Oddo, the Staten Island borough president who is pushing for a controlled hunt, said the beneficial results of the program were “still years away.” “The hard reality of what we must do remains right there in plain view in front of us,” Mr. Otto said. “It’s time we acknowledged it.”

Every year, in late winter, I find 3 or 4 mauled whitetail remains on my property. Every spring, when fawns are being dropped and coyote season is closed, I see lots of them around on my land. I swear NY State promotes this to lower the whitetail population.

It wasn't sick, just old. Wolves, like grizzlies, go for easy prey when they are too old to hunt the hard way. This isn't the first wolf attack in Canada. Just the first in one of their national parks. They've had others in smaller parks. With wolves around, there will be old ones that will be dangerous. Anyone spending time in these areas should be armed and ready to defend themselves if needed. Canada is stupid to prevent people from defending themselves.

Hong Kong, more patriotic and pro-America than any democratic presidential candidate.

In 1833, Joseph Story touched on the importance of the judicial system when he noted: "Personal security and private property rest entirely upon the wisdom, the stability, and the integrity of the courts of justice." The judicial system is obviously profoundly important — and also extremely susceptible. It's under constant siege by those who abhor the Rule of Law, which is why Thomas Jefferson in 1819 wrote, "The Constitution ... is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary which they may twist and shape into any form they please." The Supreme Court is the last line of defense — or, in social activists' minds, the last line of offense — which makes it extremely powerful, for good or ill. Thomas Jefferson was especially concerned about the latter. In 1821, he wrote, "It has long, however, been my opinion ... that the germ of dissolution of our federal government is in the constitution of the federal Judiciary; an irresponsible body ... working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped from the States, and the government of all be consolidated into one." Whether in the past or in the present, too many jurists have used their roles not to enforce constitutional rights but to implement their own objectives — the consequences of which are plainly obvious. Such dereliction is especially true of leftist judicial activists who think of our charter as a "living constitution." In fact, upholding the Rule of Law is considered unfashionable by their standards. Ironically, it's those who defend the Constitution who are most viciously assailed today. This was intimated with scary brazenness this week. According to Fox News, "Several high-profile Senate Democrats [Sheldon Whitehouse, Richard Blumenthal, Mazie Hirono, Richard Durbin, and Kirsten Gillibrand] warned the Supreme Court in pointed terms ... that it could face a fundamental restructuring if justices do not take steps to 'heal' the court in the near future." Fox News adds, "The Democratic senators' brief was filed in the case of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. City of New York, which dealt with legal limitations on where gun owners could transport their licensed, locked, and unloaded firearms. They are urging the court to stay out of the case brought by the NRA-backed group, claiming that because the city recently changed the law to ease restrictions, the push to the Supreme Court is part of an 'industrial-strength influence campaign' to get the conservative majority to rule in favor of gun owners." The brief fumes, "Perhaps the Court can heal itself before the public demands it be 'restructured in order to reduce the influence of politics.'" But as Hot Air's Jazz Shaw observes, "What [its] actually threatening to do is the most politically driven and drastic action imaginable in this scenario." It wreaks of political malfeasance. How else can you parse the demand to, as The Daily Wire's Paul Bois says, "vote liberal or else have conservatives rotated off the court"? The Second Amendment is the palladium of liberties, therefore the Left rightly sees it as the biggest hindrance to the rule of men. So expect Democrats to use whatever "influence of politics" they can in their attempt to encroach on it — including by overhauling the Supreme Court for protecting the all-important Second Amendment. Patriot Post

They want us to believe if they could ban all guns from the hands of all citizens, guys like this couldn't get them and shoot cops. They obviously do not want citizens to know what a black market is. It's all about disarming citizens to control them. Listen to people who already know.

What a jerk. Big tough guy. I would have invited him outside in a heartbeat.

A leftist progressive Marxist totalitarian repeal of the 2nd Amendment would have a great deal of influence on my answer.

I'm going to live to be 100. And I will be murdered at that age by a jealous husband. Gotta have a goal to make it that far. Heck, it's only 36 years away.

The topic is govt requiring safety classes to engage in a civil activity, correct? Well, perhaps a little extrapolation into where that can lead is a good idea. I don't post these things to get people pissed off. I post them to get people to realize they are giving up their freedoms without a fight. I'm always amazed how little resistance people offer whenever they are told to comply with new restrictions on their freedom. It's a bad idea to be so compliant with constraints. I'll just leave this as food for thought and let it go now. I've said all I can. Take it or leave it.

How about the US come to understand this? Backpacks won't work, because the shooters often assess their victims to be sure they're dead.

How much is left of 2nd Amendment rights in NY today?

We have plenty of rules and regulations. They are supposed to be used against lawbreakers, not responsible citizens. A free society presses charges against people who violate laws. It doesn't engage in "preventative law" where everyone is assumed to be a violator unless approved by the government. Our society has become one where govt grants privileges, but makes excuses for violators of laws. It will make excuses for people dumping on the street, like they do in California, even though there is a law against it.

You know there will come a day when all gun owners will be required to take a safety test as well. It's coming and it won't be possible to object, especially when many gun owners will support it as a good idea. It's all good, "If it can save just one life." Funny how that saying doesn't apply to CC in so many places.

I used to enjoy football years ago. I just can't abide anything that's knocking down what I love. People used to have far less tolerance for sedition. Times have certainly changed. I guess the transformation of America has had some success. BTW, there's always hockey. I like hockey.

Wouldn't be needed if the schools would simply put armed security in place.

I feel the same when people jump whenever the govt says jump.

Location, location, location..... LOL!

At this time of year, he would probably be a 3 year old.

And many of them took a hunter safety course. It's no guarantee people won't do things they shouldn't. But letting them off by claiming it was an accident is what is wrong.

It's about tyranny. The founders would have been shooting by now.

The mother of a young girl who was killed in a boating accident lobbied Albany to pass this legislation. But I suspect she was asked to do it by lawmakers who wanted this imposed on everyone. I'm pretty sure the boating community isn't very happy about it. It makes everyone pay for the actions of one reckless boater. BTW, many older hunters have never had to take the hunter safety course. If they've been hunting for 50 or more years without incident, I guess they didn't need to.

Yeah, it's about the NFL, right? Well, I don't see where much has changed since it started allowing people to disrespect the flag, the police, the military and the country in general. It ain't about skin color son. It's about the attitude. I'm not about to subsidize any organization that allows such disrespect, and I feel an obligation to speak up when people do. I've never understood what people get out of watching football in the first place. It's mere entertainment, yet fans seem to feel they actually have some sort of impact on the team and it's success when they watch a game and cheer at a TV screen. People actually think they are part of the team when they're fanatics. It's a game. But they're giving it a lot of their money. When the organization that benefits from your money starts using it against you, it's time to stop giving it your money.

I'm constantly hearing complaints there are too few classes available and they fill up fast. That discourages people from getting a hunting license. Look how the number of hunting licenses sold every year has declined and continues to do so. Mandated classes have a lot to do with it. Are they a good thing to go to? Yes. Can they do damage to the hunting population? Yes. Are hunting accident rates really down when you figure in the per capita number of hunters today? Percentage wise, I believe the accident rate is the same as it always was, just fewer hunters out there now, putting in far fewer days afield. If killing someone when hunting was considered murder and severely prosecuted, as opposed to passing it off as an accident, I think you would likely never see a killing in the hunting field. I'm not one to applaud obstacles put in people's way in order for them to exercise their freedoms. It's very easy for the powers that be to eliminate your freedoms when they control the means of allowing you to enjoy them. Let people enjoy their freedoms and punish them severely if they abuse that freedom. That would go a lot farther in reducing the idiots out there than any government mandated "education" program ever will. It also insures all idiots are held equally accountable. One other thing to consider here. Notice how pistol permits in NYC are granted to the rich, connected and privileged, but denied to everyone else? That's an issue that always arises whenever the government gets to control who has freedom and who doesn't. If you don't see the threat in these government mandated infringements, it's not that it isn't there. You just don't see it. That's how all of these things come to be. They are sold to the public with smoke and mirrors and nobody ever asks, "What could possibly go wrong?"