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

OmSigDAVID wrote:

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.

The Second Amendment is derived from clauses in the English Bill of Rights that were designed to prevent the king from disarming the militia, as King James II had just tried to do.

The main push to include the Second Amendment in the American Bill of Rights came from Patrick Henry, who feared that the federal government would attempt to do the same thing that James II has done.

His concerns were also primarily about arms possessed by militia members (a militia being an organization much like today's Swiss militia, where militiamen keep their automatic rifles at home, and don't do anything but defend their own country).

[quote][URL=http://www.constitution.org/rc/rat_va_04.htm]http://www.constitution.org/rc/rat_va_04.htm[/URL] Patrick Henry: A standing army we shall have, also, to execute the execrable commands of tyranny; and how are you to punish them? Will you order them to be punished? Who shall obey these orders? Will your mace-bearer be a match for a disciplined regiment? In what situation are we to be? The clause before you gives a power of direct taxation, unbounded and unlimited, exclusive power of legislation, in all cases whatsoever, for ten miles square, and over all places purchased for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, &c. What resistance could be made? The attempt would be madness. You will find all the strength of this country in the hands of your enemies; their garrisons will naturally be the strongest places in the country. Your militia is given up to Congress, also, in another part of this plan: they will therefore act as they think proper: all power will be in their own possession. You cannot force them to receive their punishment: of what service would militia be to you, {52} when, most probably, you will not have a single musket in the state? for, as arms are to be provided by Congress, they may or may not furnish them. Let me here call your attention to that part which gives the Congress power "to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States ?- reserving to the states, respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress." By this, sir, you see that their control over our last and best defence is unlimited. If they neglect or refuse to discipline or arm our militia, they will be useless: the states can do neither ?- this power being exclusively given to Congress. The power of appointing officers over men not disciplined or armed is ridiculous; so that this pretended little remains of power left to the states may, at the pleasure of Congress, be rendered nugatory.[/quote] [quote][URL=http://www.constitution.org/rc/rat_va_07.htm]http://www.constitution.org/rc/rat_va_07.htm[/URL] Patrick Henry: There are to be a number of places fitted out for arsenals and dockyards in the different states. Unless you sell to Congress such places as are proper for these, within your state, you will not be consistent after adoption: it results, therefore, clearly, that you are to give into their hands all such places as are fit for strongholds. When you have these fortifications and garrisons within your state, your legislature will have no power over them, though they see the most dangerous insults offered to the people daily. They are also to have magazines in each state. These depositories for arms, though within the state, will be free from the control of its legislature. Are we at last brought to such an humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defence? Where is the difference between having our arms in our own possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? {169} If our defence be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands? If our legislature be unworthy of legislating for every foot in this state, they are unworthy of saying another word. The clause which says that Congress shall "provide for arming, organizing, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively the appointment of the officers," seemed to put the states in the power of Congress. I wished to be informed, if Congress neglected to discipline them, whether the states were not precluded from doing it. Not being favored with a particular answer, I am confirmed in my opinion, that the states have not the power of disciplining them, without recurring to the doctrine of constructive implied powers. If, by implication, the states may discipline them, by implication, also, Congress may officer them; because, in a partition of power, each has a right to come in for part; and because implication is to operate in favor of Congress on all occasions, where their object is the extension of power, as well as in favor of the states. We have not one fourth of the arms that would be sufficient to defend ourselves. The power of arming the militia, and the means of purchasing arms, are taken from the states by the paramount powers of Congress. If Congress will not arm them, they will not be armed at all.[/quote] [quote][URL=http://www.constitution.org/rc/rat_va_12.htm]http://www.constitution.org/rc/rat_va_12.htm[/URL] George Mason: There are various ways of destroying the militia. A standing army may be perpetually established in their stead. I abominate and detest the idea of a government, where there is a standing army. The militia may be here destroyed by that method which has been practised in other parts of the world before; that is, by rendering them useless ?- by disarming them. Under various pretences, Congress may neglect to provide for arming and disciplining the militia; and the state governments cannot do it, for Congress has an exclusive right to arm them, &c. Here is a line of division drawn between them ?- the state and general governments. The power over the militia is divided between them. The national government has an exclusive right to provide for arming, organizing, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States. The state governments have the power of appointing the officers, and of training the militia, according to the discipline prescribed by Congress, if they should think proper to prescribe any. Should the national government wish to render the militia useless, they may neglect them, and let them perish, in order to have a pretence of establishing a standing army. Patrick Henry: My honorable friend attacked the honorable gentleman with universal principles ?- that, in all nations and ages, rulers have been actuated by motives of individual interest and private emoluments, and that in America it would be so also. I hope, before we part with this great bulwark, this noble palladium of safety, we shall have such checks interposed as will render us secure. The militia, sir, is our ultimate safety. We can have no security without it. But then, he says that the power of arming and organizing the militia is concurrent, and to be equally exercised by the general and state governments. I am sure, and I trust in the candor of that gentleman, that he will recede from that {386} opinion, When his recollection will be called to the particular clause which relates to it. As my worthy friend said, there is a positive partition of power between the two governments. To Congress is given the power of "arming, organizing, and disciplining the militia, and governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States." To the state legislatures is given the power of appointing the officers, and training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress." I observed before, that, if the power be concurrent as to arming them, it is concurrent in other respects. If the states have the right of arming them, &c., concurrently, Congress, has a concurrent power of appointing the officers, and training the militia. If Congress have that power, it is absurd. To admit this mutual concurrence of powers will carry on into endless absurdity ?- that Congress has nothing exclusive on the one hand, nor the states on the other. The rational explanation is, that Congress shall have exclusive power of arming them, &c., and that the State governments shall have exclusive power of appointing the officers, &c. Let me put it in another light. May we not discipline and arm them, as well as Congress, if the power be concurrent? so that our militia shall have two sets of arms, double sets of regimentals, &c.; and thus, at a very great cost, we shall be doubly armed. The great object is, that every man be armed. But can the people afford to pay for double sets of arms, &c.? Every one Who is able may have a gun. But we have learned, by experience, that, necessary as it is to have arms, and though our Assembly has, by a succession of laws for many years, endeavored to have the militia completely armed, it is still far from being the case. When this power is given up to Congress without. limitation or bounds, how will your militia be armed? You trust to chance; for sure I am that that nation which shall trust its liberties in other hands cannot long exist. If gentlemen are serious when they suppose a concurrent power, where can be the impolicy to amend it? Or, in other words, to say that Congress shall not arm or discipline them, till the states Shall have refused or neglected to do it? This is my object. I only wish to bring it to what they themselves say is implied. Implication is to be the foundation of our civil liberties; and when you speak of arming the militia by a {387} concurrence of power, you use implication. But implication will not save you, when a strong army of veterans comes upon you. You would be laughed at by the whole world, for trusting your safety implicitly to implication.[/quote]

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