Northcountryman

Yes, excellent point; its such hypocrisy. I think it all boils down to whether the term being applied references groups predominantly "white" or "non-white" based on this cultural hyper-sensitivity nonsense. Black, brown and yellow people are perceived as the minority "oppressed" and "victim" groups whereas white prople are viewed "oppressers" and "victimizers"; thus, its ok to apply virus labels that implicitly , may reference these groups but not the the "victimized groups, of course.

Actually , Biden’s plan allows EVERYBODY In regardless of tests or quarantined lol ( or is that his immigration policy ?? Actually , I think they’re the same !!! Lol)

Do you remember the public outcry at the time from the Left as a result of the imposition of this ban, though? Biden called it a "Xenophobic response" , and then , turned around and imposed a similar type of ban this week! I'm not sure about what you said regarding regular citizens being allowed back in--maybe , maybe not-- but even if true, he would have been skewered for adopting that that sort of measure anyway, I'm sure.

Dont know what you mean when you say it didnt really keep anyone out. The efficacy of Trumps' response to COVID can be devated for sure, but youre description of the ban is inaccurate. Here is an excerpt from an article describing the ban at tthe time: ..."The next day, Jan. 31, the president declared coronavirus a U.S. public health emergency and issued the ban on travel between the United States and China. On that same day, the Senate voted on the production of additional documents in the impeachment trial of President Trump. Campaigning in Iowa that day, Biden criticized President Trump’s China travel ban, saying during an Iowa campaign event, “This is no time for Donald Trump’s record of hysteria and xenophobia.” As the article demonstrates, said ban certainly kept Chinese nationalists out!!

Theres no such thing as "Trumpism"; its a made-up construct whose political ideologies are antithetical to that held by the former Prez. Using his surname as a pejorative term further unerscores the contempt and derision that fully half of the electorate has for the other half--and this is why so many of them feel marginalized....

Oh ok, gotcha

Yes Sir, excellent point you make and I agree. I actually, was one of the "inmdoctrinated " back in the day and even vioted for Al Gore back in 2000 (What was I thinking?)!! Didnt wake up nutil 9/11 and havent looked back since!!

If enough lefties demand it, you can; thats whats happened in hard-core blue cities like DC, with some of the strictest gun laws in America. Let me be clear: I agree with your position that it SHOULD be immutable in perpetuity. but I wouldnt count on it saving the day if and when things get worse and we get vastly outnumbered. You see, this is one of the problems were facing with the younger generation not into hunting. Take, for example, Bowman Mike. Hes said himself that he doesnt care about the 2nd A and if it was revoked , he couldnt care less. How many more are there out there like BM with similar sentiments? ALOT My son doesnt care about hunting, doesnt own guns and doesnt care to; nor do his friends. Eventually, they will outnumber us. And when the minority of the populace becomes apathetic, if not outright hostile, THATS when it will be taken away. I truly hope that I'm wrong , but dont think that I am.

"The 2nd A was never an idea, nor is it a tradition."--Grouse Sure it is, I mean, it had to originate from somewhere , right? America was the first--but not only--nation on earth whose governement clealry delineated a guaranteed right to possess firearms. This originates , I believe, from our system of values borne out of the Revolution, fighting against tyranny and oppression. Since weve possesed this right for roughly 230 years, it has now become tradtiion which, in large part is why it has been immemsely difficult for the left to rescind this right. Granted, they have made progress in certain aspects of this right--which is disturbing--but , overall, this liberty remains largely undisturbed and intact. Upon comparison with other nations holding no such tradition (Russia, China, Japan, etc.) , their denial of this precious right was relatively easy to enact and even easieer to sustain (i.e., the populace is accustomed to not possessing firearms, now for multiple generations ,so they dont "miss" what they never "had"in the first place).

Oh, I see what your'e saying; youre referring to classic Liberalism, go it. You know, I was curious, so I looked it up in the online dictionary. Heres the offical def accdg to Merriam: Liberal' shares a root with 'liberty' and can mean anything from "generous" to "loose" to "broad-minded." Politically, it means "“a person who believes that government should be active in supporting social and political change." To simplify it , I often view liberals as those who actively embrace change , when they deem it necessary, whereas conservatives typically are more traditionalists, tending to be content with status quo governmental systems to remain as-is. Poiltical positions, of course, vary over time as society changes. For example, during the early years of our countrys foundation , the 2nd A. right was considered a liberal idea because it was new and a "change". Now, its viewed as a Conervative idea because it has become tradition. Go figure!!

Sweet, I've never used sticks; are they relatively easy to hump in or kinda awkward?

Really, have you ever had Mountain Ram? I wonder if thats any good...

Depends on how Liberal they are IMHO. I know several Libs--my sister included--who , if they had their way, would revoke the 2nd A. cuz they feel its antiquated and a relic from the past indicative of a more "primitive and violent society" and is no longer needed. Remember big mouths like Rosie O'Fattell (O'Donnell lol)? The hard core ones are VERY dangerous IMHO.

VH, the article you provided is kind of luke-warm , at best in support of your contention that Democrats serve hunters interets more sufficiently than Republicans, dont you think? I mean, this article is centered mainly around regional/state poltics in Montana and refers more to local republican party rule than anything. Moreover, one guy who's quoted in the article even mentioned that the it is dubious that the Dems would be even better, and probably worse. This article is hardly a ringing endorsement for convincing Hunters to support Dems--you can do better!!

Yup !!

Oh ok, just noticed; I will check out your article

A tad more than a sourpuss or two , I'm afraid , VH lol

Me too, almost exactly the same ; based on my own personal history and experience, my gut tells me that this law would be abused in a similar manner.

You dont care about the 2nd Amendment? I am very saddened to hear that, really. Well ,that is unfortunate; maybe someday they will even come for your bow too .

Mike, with all due respect...really? No you wouldnt!! You would NOT be ok with this piece of legislation passing--no freakin way!! And Just because it --as written-- doesnt affect youre bow equipment , you dont care how ot impacts the rest of us?? Tell me I'm wrong in what I just inferred from what youre saying cuz, if true, thats pretty messed up

See the above DD

I would LOVE to get me some Elk; arent they(i.e., DEC) trying to bring them back in NY?

looks like that 13 degree adjustment on my compass between magnetic and "true" north when in NY will have to be adjusted

Hope youre right, man, thats all I can say

I agree, a back door way of denying the vast majority of us our 2nd A. rights. I could be paranoid , but I can envision alot here--like Exes. neighbors that dont like you, etc.--callin ATF to report youre a drunk , which may put the onus on YOU to prove youre not.