Rattler

I cut from the genitals up. I put two fingers under the skin with the knife blade in between facing up, so as not to puncture any innards. I cut out the pelvic bone to release the anus. I use a 2nd knife I don't care much about and can hammer it with a rock I find nearby. (Lately I carry a short hammer in the pack to save the trouble of finding a suitable rock.) I cut through the brisket/sternum with my 1st knife. It's not hard to do. It's soft bone in the middle. Need a blade about 5 or 6", hold with two hands cutting edge up and pull up towards the neck. That leaves plenty of room for the windpipe grab. I don't go as far if I'm mounting the head. Pull it down towards the tail. Cut small snags inside the back if need be. Cut the diaphragm along the ribs and the whole thing rolls right out the bottom. Very little blood gets on you and you only need two knives and a nice rock to hammer with. I also like to hang the deer with my drag rope for a short while to let the blood drain out as much as possible. Less dripping all over later.

I use a climber sometimes, but it's just the bottom and I hug the tree. Less to carry into the woods. Straps on my back and my back pack hangs on it. Some public land I hunt makes it the best choice for me.

Staten Island is a good place to go to get used to seeing big deer and preventing buck fever. just can't hunt them there.

It's nice to have a place to post all of the things normal people couldn't care less about.

From one of the country's most knowledgeable authorities on the US Constitution: The Left has, over time, perpetuated the idea that the Bill of Rights, whose 10 amendments were designed to protect individual citizens from government tyranny, somehow includes a Second Amendment that empowers the government to determine when and where those citizens can carry weapons. But why would the Founders go to the trouble of ensuring such rights while allowing the government to snatch them away from an undefended population? Still, in 2008 the Supreme Court held 5-4 in District of Columbia v. Heller that the Second Amendment was an individual right, a decision that former Justice John Paul Stevens called the worst of his tenure. The Federalist's David Harsanyi writes, "Earlier this year, in fact, Stevens implored Americans to do what he couldn't while on the court, and repeal the Second Amendment." The fact that the Heller decision was even necessary reveals just how far we've fallen since our founding. The ruling came far too late to push back against decades of leftist propaganda and activism designed to convince millions of Americans that the Second Amendment was far different from the other nine rights — that it was neither individual nor narrowly limited but collective and extremely limited. Since then, lower courts have had a field day misinterpreting the Constitution and upholding laws making it harder for citizens to acquire guns. For example, in 2016 the infamous Ninth Circuit Court determined in Peruta v. California that one must show "good cause" in order to carry a concealed weapon. Sadly, these kinds of outrageous decisions are free to stand as long as the Supreme Court refuses to hear key cases rather than establishing strong precedents that would put the issue to rest. As John Yoo and James C. Phillips write at National Review, "Despite the text of the Second Amendment, supporters of a right to bear arms have rooted their arguments in a murky pre-constitutional right to self-defense. As a result, the Supreme Court has shied away from halting the spread of federal and state schemes for gun control, for which the cries will only rise higher after the recent mass shootings. Unless the new conservative majority on the Court, solidified by Justice Brett Kavanaugh's arrival, places the right to bear arms on a par with the rest of the Bill of Rights, the coming blue wave of gun-control proposals may swamp what the Framers considered a core constitutional right." Justice Clarence Thomas made this clear when he recently wrote, "The Framers made a clear choice: They reserved to all Americans the right to bear arms for self-defense. I do not think we should stand by idly while a State denies its citizens that right, particularly when their very lives may depend on it." In order to clarify the intent of the framers, Second Amendment proponents cannot merely fall back onto the amendment itself, but must go back farther to understand its history. We must arm ourselves with centuries of natural law and English common law principles in order to smash the collective-right theory of the 1960s. For now, conservatives are losing the public relations battle that works against the Second Amendment every time there's a new mass shooting. And we had better act swiftly. Nancy Pelosi and company aren't about to sit back when they take the reins from House Republicans in January. Mark Walters writes that, with Democrats in power, "We will see a renewed push for expanded background checks and a ban on so-called high capacity magazines. And I expect we will see some form of 'assault weapons' ban as well as a push for federal Extreme Risk Protection Orders and red flag laws. These red flag laws disarm American citizens by violating their due process rights based simply on an allegation that someone may be a danger to themselves or others." All this would be of less concern if the Supreme Court and its new, more conservative majority would simply take up more Second Amendment cases and decisively reestablish the self-evident right of American citizens to defend themselves. Indeed, the High Court may be the last best hope for securing this right against a leftist obsession to take it away. Mark Alexander

Get the book "Meat Eater" first and you will understand where all of his current stuff comes from. Then everything of his you watch today will make sense.

I believe he was. LOL! He was doing some hunting in upstate NY at the time too. I invited him to hunt with me on my land back then, but he said he was going to Alaska for the hunting season. He finally convinced his wife to move out of Brooklyn about 2 years later.

He's got a great chapter in the "Meat Eater" book about falling in love when he first met his wife to be and moving to Brooklyn, NY because she worked in the city. It's funny because he was advertising he was a hunter to all of his neighbors with antlers on the walls, inside and out, and wearing camo on the street. Great way to show you ain't feeling guilty about your healthy lifestyle.

Philo, you should really check him out. Get his book, "Meat Eater". One of the best ever written about how a young boy experiences hunting and eating wild game as a lifestyle. He really relates hunting to every day sustenance, and does it in a way that makes people understand the normalcy and allure of it. I enjoyed reading it and keep it on the shelf for others to read when they wonder why I love to hunt and fish. I think you can find a lot of his writing on Google and YouTube if you want to get the gist of his style. I think you would enjoy his stories.

Here's a picture of my Kimber Montana 84M in 7MM-08. It sports a Leupold Compact 3-9x33mm. Standard Duplex. I wanted the lightest 3-9 variable I could get on it. I think it's perfect for a lightweight rifle. It has enough power for long range, yet doesn't negatively affect the rifle's handling at all.

QUOTE: "Meaning that saying anyone who drinks enough to become inebriated or smokes a little weed or anything like that, has some sort of "mental illness", and that those who do not do that are somehow superior to those that choose to. Its a bunch of horse manure, and has nothing at all to do with any further updates or changes to the so called safe act." Nobody said anyone who drinks or smokes pot has a mental illness. Anyone who frequently seeks out drinking and drugs to deal with life, has a mental illness. That's not an opinion, it's a clinical diagnosis from the America Psychiatric Assn. Considering this thread was about more restrictions under the SAFE Act, and the fact that alcoholics and drug addicts are already banned from buying a firearm when honestly answering those questions on the background check paperwork, is it too much to expect those restrictions will become even more oppressive as the anti's strive to deny more applications? They will be making the rules, and you will not be given any quarter when they do. If they can prove you are a habitual drinker or pot smoker, rest assured, you will be denied based on not being in your right mind. It will be easy to get a multitude of professional mental health counselors to attest to it. Frequently seeking out substances that put you in any intoxicated state, is already diagnosed as a mental illness. Getting a DWI may be enough to get you denied in the future under these rules. You can make the same rebuttals to the debate as you do here, but it won't matter to those who prefer preventative law over constitutional rights.

There is nothing to fear on the federal level, since the Senate is controlled by the GOP and will not endorse any anti-gun bills supported by the house. Even if they did, it's not likely Trump would sign it. The state governments are the worry. Many are rabidly anti-gun and are willing to pass all sorts of crazy gun laws, banking on them never being challenged in the Supreme Court.

Meaning?

By a hunter, or a husband?

Anyone with any "common sense" still think "Universal Background Checks" would be a good idea? This is the type of crap they would do to make sure most people get denied.

What he said was, anyone who drinks it with the intention of altering their mental state, is mentally ill. I tend to agree that people who do anything that intentionally makes them stoned, are dealing with some mental issues, or at least an addiction.

The NRA is currently suing Cuomo for banning the sale of Carry Guard insurance for concealed carry permit holders. They are also working on getting semi-auto rifle bans like the SAFE Act before the Supreme Court and expect to see a ruling on it in the new year. The challenge will be against the ban in another state, but will affect all bans like it in any state. Legalizing pot has nothing to do with state governments recognizing your freedom to smoke it. It's all about taxing it to get more money in the state coffers. It won't be cheaper when it's legal and the state will be the one making big bucks from selling it. When booze was illegal, crime was high. The government made it legal again to stop the crime, but also to make lots of tax revenue from it. The same can be said for the lottery. The same can be said for drugs. (Except not all drugs will be legal, so the crime will not stop) It's not about freedom, your rights, or even crime. It's about money. That's all the government is ever interested in when it makes anything taxable. They start doing the same thing criminals were doing, but because they are the government, it's legal. Not moral or ethical, but legal. When these semi auto gun bans are declared unconstitutional, you will see states begin massive micro managed regulation of any firearm they thought should have been banned. The taxes on them will fly sky high and the permits to own them will cost you big money every year. Ammo will also be considered fair game for "sin" taxes. Taxes are always constitutional.

Dump them. Had a friend with a Mossberg bolt action 12 gauge fire an old Rottweil slug in the gun. Pressure must have been way up, because the bolt set back so far, we needed to hammer it to get it open. Then we saw it had been pushed back so far it needed to be filed down around the bolt handle to make it work. Figuring the headspace was now too much, the bolt was replaced with a new one. If it had been a pump action or a semi, I think the gun would have been far worse off. I wouldn't shoot them if I were you.

I once caught a Bobwhite Quail with my bare hands while hunting. Didn't need to pick any pellets out of that bird.

I'm sure it can be done, but is it legal? Does the guy have a hunting license and was the season open? Or maybe he took it on a paid preserve.

My butcher also charged $25 to cape for my taxidermist. All they really do is cut the head off close to the skull and leave a lot of hide attached to it. Seems to me it's something they probably do on every deer they butcher, but charge extra for it if you need it. Maybe it's to insure they're careful not to cut the hide in any part of the cape.

Has "cowboy" ever killed one with a firearm? If not, tell him to try doing that first. If he has, refer him to the NY Game Laws compendium section on legal hunting implements where he will see what is legal to use. None of the above are, as far as I know.

I have seen cases where the bullets that hit the home were actually fired by the homeowner, who then claimed hunters did it. One guy wanted a rifle range more than a mile away shut down, and claimed a bullet in his house wall came from the range. It turned out to be a FMJ .45 ACP slug that was fired from about 50 yards.

Anytime a husband shoots his wife while "cleaning" his gun, I think it really was not an accident. At least it doesn't make hunters look bad. At least we haven't seen a hunting related shooting that was fatal so far.

No accidental shootings is always good news. Too bad it isn't the norm.