Thoughts on gun control

Early this AM I took a walk through the Forest near Meddybemps. I carried my Ithaca 12 gage with punkin balls. There are some larger black bear that have actually stalked people (noone hurt this year), but taking chances with a naturally curious and menu driven beast is not my idea of smart in the woods. I was out looking for artifacts and I had my place map and GPS (and my Ithaca with a "Lupe" sling so its out of the way). I did see one bear but we kept distance from each other .Some of these bears in the Maine woods are habitated to humans because the sport of "baiting" is allowed in this state.

I am against baiting as a hunting aid, its unfair . Besides, the bears that come to bait holes are like rottweilers ( 150 pounders). I wouldnt even waste a shot on one of those( even if I was hunting bear , which I dont do) . In Pa , the largest bear taken last year exceeded the B & C record for a black bear in all of the US (ALAska included). They dont allow any baiting in Pa and the hunters and the take is tightly controlled by county.

0 Replies

Baiting is critical for bowhunting success. With rifle or slug, not so important.

0 Replies

The only reason I'd ever shoot a bear would be self defense.

0 Replies

We're getting off topic, but if anyone want to read the Michigan general rules for bear hunting, go here:

http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,1607,7-153-10363_10856_10890-26045--,00.html#baiting

0 Replies

You go from

cjhsa wrote:

Several people here have alluded to my association of guns with power.

This is true. When in the middle of nowhere in the woods, which I often am, and often with my wife and kids, all it takes is one mean SOB with a bad agenda to ruin your whole day, if not your life.

While staying aware is your first line of defense, being armed is a great equalizer and wonderful deterrent to criminals.

to baiting Question

I was also wondering why you put your wife and kids in harms way since you obviously think it is dangerous.

cjhsa wrote:

Baiting is critical for bowhunting success. With rifle or slug, not so important.

0 Replies

I'd suggest you buy a clue, but you are probably broke.

0 Replies

There are some in these discussions who apparently have mastered the art of baiting.

0 Replies

Still waiting for the hairraising account of Oralloy and the charging bear....

0 Replies

snood wrote:

So what were the details of the situation that led you to be confronted with a charging bear?

I haven't been confronted with such a situation.

But I have turned down opportunities to go for walks in woods where bears were known to be sighted.

Had I a double rifle chambered in .577 Nitro Express, I may have instead grabbed the gun and gone for the walk.

Since I did not have an adequate bear defense, I chose to be prudent.

By the way, I made an earlier comment implying the .577 was illegal in this country. I've since read that it is exempted from the "over .50 caliber" restrictions because of its sporting use. I'm not sure whether or not it truly has the exemption, but it makes sense. (I've just never heard of the ATF making a sensible ruling before.)

0 Replies

edgarblythe wrote:

There are plenty of lefties who support the right to own a gun, myself included. Like anything that's potentially dangerous or could be used for immoral, illegal purposes, I support gun control is all.

The problem isn't all types of gun control.

The problem is when gun controllers try to ban civilian ownership of self-defense or militia weapons. Or when they try to make it such a hassle for civilians to acquire such weapons that people don't bother.

0 Replies

Intrepid wrote:

You go from

cjhsa wrote:
Several people here have alluded to my association of guns with power.

This is true. When in the middle of nowhere in the woods, which I often am, and often with my wife and kids, all it takes is one mean SOB with a bad agenda to ruin your whole day, if not your life.

While staying aware is your first line of defense, being armed is a great equalizer and wonderful deterrent to criminals.

to baiting

Is it against the rules to discuss both hunting and self-defense in the same thread?

0 Replies

Quote:

There are some in these discussions who apparently have mastered the art of baiting.

And a tip ofthe hat to the great bird. Rising from apprentice to master is indeed an accomplishment.

0 Replies

cjhsa wrote:

I'd suggest you buy a clue, but you are probably broke.

If you ask nicely, perhaps nimh will sell you a vowel
:wink:

0 Replies

oralloy wrote:

edgarblythe wrote:
There are plenty of lefties who support the right to own a gun, myself included. Like anything that's potentially dangerous or could be used for immoral, illegal purposes, I support gun control is all.

The problem isn't all types of gun control.

The problem is when gun controllers try to ban civilian ownership of self-defense or militia weapons.
Or when they try to make it such a hassle for civilians to acquire such weapons that people don't bother.

I must respectfully DISSENT
from your first sentence.

Conceding jurisdiction of this to any government,
is logically intolerable.
Government has better authority
to regulate whether u wear sox, or
to choose your favorite color for u,
in that this is not EXPLICITLY put beyond the reach of government power
in the Bill of Rights, as is any governmental control of guns.

We must not lose sight of the fact
that freedom of citizens to arm themselves with guns
was not only acknowledged to exist for defense from criminals or animals,
but also for defense from government itself.
This is what the successful Revolutionaries who wrote
the Bill of Rights had in mind.

Thay did not want the King of England controlling the guns
that thay used during the Revolution, and
thay believed that future revolutions might be necessary,
in which event, thay wanted the citizens to WIN,
and government to be subdued by them.

The successful Revolutionaries who wrote the Bill of Rights
were very aware of the adversarial nature
of the relationship between government and its creators, the citizens.
That wud be like the Germans having authority
to decide what guns the French can use during war.
David

0 Replies

I know California outlawed the .50 BMG (Browning Machine Gun), but is there some restriction on guns over .50 caliber that I'm unaware of? I just figured it was more due to the damn recoil.

The most common muzzleloader is .50. They are legal in all 50 states. You can go to your local range and shoot 50-caliber handguns, however, ou might as well walk up behind a mule and stick your finger in his butt.

0 Replies

cjhsa wrote:

I know California outlawed the .50 BMG (Browning Machine Gun), but is there some restriction on guns over .50 caliber that I'm unaware of? I just figured it was more due to the damn recoil.

The most common muzzleloader is .50. They are legal in all 50 states. You can go to your local range and shoot 50-caliber handguns, however, ou might as well walk up behind a mule and stick your finger in his butt.

I have no aspiration
to firing a .50 caliber handgun.
If I were a hunter, I might reconsider.
( An acquaintance told me of needing 3 .50 caliber rounds
to kill a warthog, the last being to his head. The first 2 had blown out his lungs,
but he kept on charging until #3. Q.E.D.: animals r strong. )

For personal defensive purposes,
I deem .44 magnum to be counterproductive,
in resulting in overpenetration.

Tho admittedly, after some time has passed,
overpenetration will yield exsanguination with attendant loss of consciousness,
I believe that it is ideal to discharge as much of the muzzle energy
into the target as possible, to achieve optimal stopping power;
hence, in my opinion:
.44 special, with hollowpointed slugs, is the ideal round.

0 Replies

I am not aware of any prohibitions of
greater than .50 caliber handguns or shoulder weapons.
David

0 Replies

cjhsa wrote:

I know California outlawed the .50 BMG (Browning Machine Gun), but is there some restriction on guns over .50 caliber that I'm unaware of?

The National Firearms Act (that's the 1934 law that covers things like machine guns, silencers, and sawed-off shotguns) considers guns over .50 to be a "destructive device" unless the ATF deems them to have "sporting use".

Technically, destructive devices are attainable, if you want to go through the extreme bureaucratic hassle they put in your way (unless state or local laws say otherwise). However, the end result of the bureaucratic hassle is that they are effectively beyond the reach of most citizens.

Bill Clinton effectively eliminated assault shotguns from the American market when he ordered the ATF to rule them "non-sporting".

Muzzle loading firearms are not covered by this law.

For some reason, recent anti-terror legislation decided to label destructive devices as "weapons of mass destruction", although it did not make it any more difficult to legally own a destructive device.

0 Replies

oralloy wrote:

Intrepid wrote:
You go from

cjhsa wrote:
Several people here have alluded to my association of guns with power.

This is true. When in the middle of nowhere in the woods, which I often am, and often with my wife and kids, all it takes is one mean SOB with a bad agenda to ruin your whole day, if not your life.

While staying aware is your first line of defense, being armed is a great equalizer and wonderful deterrent to criminals.

to baiting

Is it against the rules to discuss both hunting and self-defense in the same thread?

Which is baiting? Hunting or self-defence?

0 Replies

Thoughts on gun control

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know