wildcat junkie
-
Posts
3076 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
8
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Hunting New York - NY Hunting, Deer, Bow Hunting, Fishing, Trapping, Predator News and Forums
Media Demo
Links
Calendar
Store
Posts posted by wildcat junkie
-
-
Not only did his post not explain how he believes we have a Bill of Needs attached to the US Constitution, it perfectly illustrates that junkie has trouble with the meaning of the written word when used in a sentence.
To him, that one word must mean the government can decide what rights you need and ban any they feel you don't. It's scary any American would think like that. Must've been told to think that by someone somewhere.
Is that something you plagiarized from Sarah Palin? Sure sounds like her goobledygook.
-
Aside from VJP... Not speaking for him... just offering up my respectful disagreement with your statements...Yes there is a need... but the bill doesn't give you the need... you already have that... the bill gives you the right which allows you to meet that need... the bill is not issuing you a need
the real need is freedom... the amendments are the rights given to maintain that need... so technically it is a Bill of RIGHTS... issued to protect a need...Freedom... which is already ours and we are trying to protect.. just my thought
I think perhaps we are using differing words to make the same point.
-
Not only did his post not explain how he believes we have a Bill of Needs attached to the US Constitution, it perfectly illustrates that junkie has trouble with the meaning of the written word when used in a sentence.
To him, that one word must mean the government can decide what rights you need and ban any they feel you don't. It's scary any American would think like that. Must've been told to think that by someone somewhere.
Ok, we don't "need" the Bill of Rights then.
Sorry if I misunderstood.
-
You sound like you have have had some training in Judo, Karate or some other form of hand to hand self defense method. Thats great. My father in law was a boxer back in the 50's and a tough SOB when I first met him. He is 83 now. He needs a gun if he stands a chance against a younger assailant. My wife is 5 feet tall, stretched, and weighs maybe 100lbs. she is a wuss. she needs a gun to defend herself against a bigger assailant. Different strokes for different folks.
Well, your right & I didn't mean to come off as saying that an elderly person might not need a firearm for defense.
I'm quickly getting to that age myself. The point is, if a person is caught W/O a weapon strength isn't neccessarily a prerequisite to do enough harm to a person to incapacitate them long enough to do even greater harm. Fist fights are physically draining & I would most certaily get my old a$$ handed to me engaging a younger, stronger opponent in a "fight" if they were the least bit capable. My course of action would be to avid gettimg into a "fight".
One thing I learned in my limited training in martial arts, a "belt" doesn't mean squat. Many times, all the belt means is that the person has learned a certain set of sequenced moves. Putting those moves into use in a street situation is a whole nuther ball of wax. Notv saying that some of those "belt" holders aren't bad a$$, but a lot of 'em ain't. Just like using a firearm in a tense situation. ome are capable, some aren't
I sought training because my employment required that I had to work & sleep among armed thugs & there were times when I was not armed with my .380. When I could, I carried it. I never earned any "belts" but when sparring, I was always put up against brown belts & above, most of them very capable. I certainly took a lot of lumps, but I also saw some pretty slick moves put on me. Nothing like a foot up side the head to make a lasting impression.
-
To be fair... the "necessary" refers to the Militia not the arms... The Militia is what is necessary.. leading to.. THE RIGHT to keep and bear arms by the people
It still refers to a need.
If you don't need a militia, you don't need the right.
Beside I just posted that the word neccessay was in the amendment, nothing more.
I'm not arguing the validity or the need for the 2nd amendment. I was just pointing out that there is a "need"
If you argue that there isn't a need, then aren't you arguing that we don't need the 2nd amendment or a bill of rights.
The Bill of Rights most certainly is a bill of needs. If they weren't we wouldn't need it.
What's so entertaining is that for me being so insignificant to Mr VJP, he certainly seems to have a hard time resistig the bait.
-
Getting back to my original point here: We have a Bill of Rights, not a Bill of Needs.
Seems that I remember seeing the word "neccessary" in the 2nd ammendment.
Please continue. I do sooo want to hear this.
The 2nd Amendment part that is
I know it's difficult for you, but those big words are made up of what is known as syllables. Syllables allow you to break those big, long, hard to say words down into sounds.
In order to make it easier for you, I enlaged the word you seem to be having difficulty with & highlighted it in RED.
Now say the syllables along with me. ne- se-sare-ee.
Second Amendment - Bearing Arms.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
-
I don't know of any that require BO during archery. So yes, it would be for gun and mz seasons. the extra hour applies to all seasons.
In regards to the quote you responded to that also included BO during Turkey Hunting.
Pennsylvania, which has some of the most restrictive hunting lws I have even encountered, used to require BO in Turkey season when on the move & I think a blaze orange ribbon above the calling position.
While the 1st requirement is borderline IMO, the 2nd is ludacrous.
Just about all spring turkey season shooting incidents would be prevented if people would just STOP TRYING TO STALK TURKEYS. It's impossible for 99.99% of hunters to stalk within shotgun range of a calling Turkey anyway.
-
Because even the smallest of concessions is immediately trumpeted as a huge win by the anti's who have absolute control over most media outlets in this country. The average Joe with no horse in the race is going to side with whoever seems to be winning. Tiny steps turn into huge victories. Never give an inch.
Criminals generally don't use legally purchased firearms anyways.
The aveage Joe in this country is going to go against the side that seems like radical extremists.
Now if we turn this country into a religious theocracy controled by extremeists, then intimidation will work. There are people working towards that right now. Hopefully, the 1st amendment will prevent that.
-
Getting back to my original point here: We have a Bill of Rights, not a Bill of Needs.
Seems that I remember seeing the word "neccessary" in the 2nd ammendment.
-
While some may consider "open carry" at the local department store or Kroger a right, you also have a right to go without a shower & changing clothes for months & visit the same places.
Neither shows good judgement or consideration for our fellow citizens.
Which bring up another point. Ohio is an 'open carry" state isn't it?
What about John Crawford's right to open carry a BB gun that he picked up from a shelf in an Ohio Walmart?
-
I still don't see the rational for the NRA opposing universal background checks.
For years they beat the drum of keeping guns out of the hands of criminals.
At least setting up background checks for gun shows would eliminate at least one source of easy access.
-
But she should be the one to decide that and nobody else.. that would be her right.
Oh yes, it's her right & I have tried to "train" her. Some folks just aren't suited to self defense. She folds when quick thinking/action is required.
-
1
-
-
Another little boy who cries "bully" when someone doesn't agree with his whining. That's another card always played by leftists when they are put in their place. I didn't back down, I ignored you, because you're insignificant.
Not crying in the least. I am emenesly entertaind by your posts.
Great comedy, thanks for being so compliant.
Please continue.
-
This is certainly true for some people but not all. Given the choice I would much rather pull my gun rather than risk doing a mind meld or trying to incapacitate an assailant with a T.V. tray or a clock radio. When it comes to the life of my family Im going for the best option.
And Im no wimp.
Not talking about mind melding rather keeping ones head & if you go back & re-read my post i tnink I included the use of a firearm in that same subject.
So, what if you are caught in a situation where you don't have your weapon? A TV tray or clock radio would be poor choices & would not be an effective weapon.
Now, the sharp corner of a conter top, a refridgerator, a heavy glass ashtray or the iron grate from a gas range would be quite effective. Stun the opponent, then incapacitate immediately.
The eliment of surprise would be paramout & using the assailants wieght to his disadvantage. Being percieved as an "old vulnerable person" would work well as far as the assailant expecting a ruthless, incapacitating action.
Even when armed with a gun, if you hesitate, you have lost the advantage. The same mind factor applies to surviving/escaping any perilous situation be it an accident or natural disastor. Take your time to think quickly under pressure. Ever hear of the sensation of things happening in slow motion? I have seen some scientific explanations for that. Survivors usually have that ability, victims often don't.
I doubt if my wife could effectively use a firearm in a tense situation to defend herself, she fold under pressure.
-
Should an elderly or physically weak person be able to use a firearm to defend themselves against a much younger/stronger attacker who is only armed with a little knife or a club or his/her own much stronger hands?? Or should it be an even playing field? Fist Vs. fists, knife Vs. knife, club Vs. club?????
Experience & ruthless treachery will win out over youth & exuberance every time.
The mind is a lethal weopon if it is employed properly. This also applies to the use of firearms for defense, but almost any room is filled with weapons, some of them fixed, some of them not..
-
What is the safety access like with the thumbhole?
-
I guess I'll give it a whirl.. I'm not too familiar with the terminology but I'll watch some more videos and hopefully it's a decent match.
Try the action in the new stock. If it drops right in it will probably require glas bedding to maintain accuracy. The action must fit into the wood so that when the action screws are tightened down, there is no binding or stress placed on the action.
My guess & what you really want, is an action/stock fit that need some wood removal to allow the action to fit down into the wood for a precise, bind free fit.
Here is a short video that shows the basics.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ikHT5EtZGqU
The guide screws are the most important item to get things lined up properly. You can probably make some if you can get long bolts in the proper thread. Hopefully the threads will interchange with something more common like a Reminton M700 or Winchester M70. Savage M10/110 action guide bolts might be available.
Most of the work can probably be accomplished with the 1/4" chisel but a nice set of SHARP chisels from 1/8' to 1/2" will make life easier.
Link that wasposted below was edited out due to the fact that the stock was modified from a M11/110 stock to fit the 220.
-
Thumbhole stocks aren't good for carry. How many shotguns intended for wing shooting do you see with thumhole stocks?
If the gun will spend all of its time at sling arms or in a raised, ready to engage position, a thumhole stock will be fine. If you ever contemplate still hunting or perhaps following a blood trail with the weapon on the ready at port arms, not so much. Form follows function.
I like the George Patton analogy.
-
If it's a Gray, pan fry it like chicken. Simmer it after you brown it to make it tender, adding some mushrooms & a little onion if that suits your taste.
If it's a Fox Squirrel make stew or pie out of it.
If it's an OLD Fox Squirrel, make boot heels out of it.
-
2
-
-
-
What if we switch the word "bullying" with the word "abusing" Has anyone noticed that not one woman has participated in this discussion?
No testosterone to vent?
-
I know many "gun owners" who have a rifle and shotgun or 2. They could care less about pistols and assault rifles. These people I know are not anti-gun, but what bugs me about some of the lets call them "gun nuts" is the level they take it to and the will they impose upon those who don't believe it's appropriate to need a 30 round magazine in what is essentially a military rifle.
Personally I recognize and support the right to own these guns, but as an organization you have to be very careful you don't go over the deep end and sway those in the middle. Remember the idiots in Arizona walking through the store with ARs on their backs? It builds a stereotype that for some turns into a perception of reality. I think with hunting most americans do not mind us shooting deer and duck and turkey etc. But yes a tournament of killing crows or a bloody deer carcass strapped across the roof a civic can turn people off. Again, I'm not advocating taking away any rights, but some of the extremist on this board need to recognize that sometimes their crusades can go to far and turn people off.
I think the current crop of "open carry" extremists are doing a huge disservice to gun owners.
I have the same opinion of Ted Nugent except he is making hunters look bad in the eyes of the public too.
-
1
-
-
Without the NRA, which has been around a long time, (100 years?) gun ownership in the USA would likely have been already outlawed. Most definitely it would be more restrictive than it already is.
However, their expertise is second amendment law / constitutional law. They should stick to that and stop talking about conservation because not only do they know nothing about conservation, they do not care about conservation, and very often advocate for UNWISE practices. They urge or suggest their members support their conservation perspective. Part of this is just the donation game. Create an enemy and the donations roll in. Anti hunting organizations do this as well. So do other pro hunting and pro gun organizations. For all they do to preserve gun ownership, the NRA works against conservation and good public relations.
And they are not always sensitive to other cultures. They stick their chin out and go out of their way not to be politically correct. There is a difference between standing with your viewpoint when it is not politically correct and going way out of your way to "pick fights". Picking fights dumbs down their supporters and generates donations. With their attitude toward conservation AND habit of picking fights, they hurt the image of gun owners, hunters, and hunting.
Gun ownership is protected by the constitution. However there are few such protections for hunting. And hunter numbers will continue to drop if we have a bad image. The bigger the drop, the more aggressively and creatively will states and the FWS will look toward non hunters to fund their agencies. More emphasis will be put on developing, improving, and USING non lethal wildlife population control methods. The bad image will hinder the broad - based public support that is necessary to pass pro hunting legislation and defeat anti hunting legislation. Confusing hunters about conservation makes them support what they should not, oppose what they should support, or ignore what they should pay attention to. If all this corresponds to less hunting opportunity due to both greater restrictions and less places to hunt, and smaller game populations, then what? Even if hunting was afforded to be a legal right and therefore untouchable, how will conservation be funded if the number of us gets precipitously low? Would such a legal right prevent banning any thing, I don't think so. Where is the public support to block anti hunting proposals if we have a bad image? Likewise does a right to hunt guarantee that new pro hunting proposals will be put into law? No it does not. Where is the public support needed to enact pro hunting proposals if we have a bad image?
Hey mike, great post. Since I'm no longer on their mailing list. I'm not aware of their stance on conservation that concerns you. Could you explain?
I would think that conservation would be in the Hunter's best interest, but of course there are differing concepts of conservation.
-
Awesome buck! Working so long & hard for him makes the success that much sweeter.
So...would you shoot?
in Deer Hunting
Posted
Not saying it is valid, but perhaps it's the longer lethal range of the weapons involved & the perception that it might be easier to mistake the similar sized forms of humans & deer, while turkeys are much smaller. Are the regulations set by the DEC or the legislature? If it is the later, rationality might not be a prerequisite.