Assault weapons

  • Thread starter Dmanmastertracker
  • Start date
D

Dmanmastertracker

Guest
With voting taking place as we speak, I'd like to know what other MM members think about the usefulness of assault weapons and our way of life. Today, police are being outgunned with many lives lost to over the counter assault weapons. My personal experience has been nothing but negative with regard to assault weapons, seeing "hunters" blast away at some unidentified game animal from a ridge away. Are they necessary? My feeling is no. There are thousands of other guns out there that are plenty enough for me and if it makes our streets safer to get rid of them, I'm OK with it.
 
dman, the problem with part of your logic is that you and i dont need more laws , we are already law abiding peoples, and although i know what u mean by assult weapons, what has happened in the past is the definition seems to vary just a wee bit at law and or bill writing time,,,, again i see your point and am not arguing it (i dont have much use for pistols) so what,,, doesnt mean u cant have one , and if i assult u with any weapon isnt that an "assult" weapon ? and i know thats not what you meant , the problem isnt people like you and me,,,, hows hunting been so far btw? :)
 
Many moons ago, I had an H&K 91 sniper model. It had an awesome heavy barrel and I could hit anything out to 600 yds. I got a hair in my arse to take it mulie hunting in Eastern, WA. I shot a decent 4x5 mulie at about 400 yds. After I drug it out to the road (about 2 miles) and was waiting for my cousin to pick me up, I was stopped by a game cop and given a ration of sh!t a mile long for using that gun for hunting. It was legal, but he thought that it was out of place. B.f.d.! The next year they came out with the assault weapons ban. I sold the damn thing for $2,800 and bought a new B.A.R., Sig 226, Lefty Springfield 30-06 and a bunch of other crap. It sure was fun to shoot but I tend to agree with the game cop that it has no place in the hunting woods. The ban didnt do much to curb the usage of them. Any one that wants an assault weapon can get one whether they are legal or not. A B.A.R. can shoot almost as fast as my old 91, so what is the difference? Magazine capacity?
Eric
deerline.gif
 
For what ever reason just remember one thing. When they take your gun they take your freedom. We fight for freedom. We are freedom.

Rut

Women love me!! Fish shudder at the mention of my name!!
It's not the quack but the flight of the wild duck that leads the flock to destiny!!
Quack Away!!
 
They can ban them, go to any gun show and see what kind of people hang around the Rambo gun tables. punks and gang bangers and tards for the most part.
 
MtMiller;

Here is a good definition for a "assualt weapon" that could be banned.

Any semi-auto centerfire rife, with detachable magazine that has a pistol grip where the majority of the pistol grip extends below a line drawn parallel with the bottom of the trigger guard.

this was the decription given for "assualt weapon" ban in CA. and was signed into law by Gov. Gray Davis. This description was drawn up and endorsed by a liberal Democrat and passed by the state legislative, which was comprised of a majority of Democrats. The ones Dman has never met or known.
If you look close, you will see that this definition takes in all hunting rifles that are semi-auto, centerfire, and has a detachable mag. does not matter if the mag only holds 3-4 rounds.
I see again where the issue is brought up about, "our cops are outgunned". this is nothing but the old line of trying to get sympathy from the voters in order to pass a law that they will think is geared towards protecting their courageous police officers.
Just about everyone here knowns about the L.A. shootout that the liberals have grabbed on too in order to support their actions of banning all assualt weapons. What the liberals seem to overlook and not tell is why those officers were outgunned.
They had a Chief, imported from back East, that was was about anti-gun as you could get, and he refused on several occasions to supply his officers with semi-auto rifles and left them being outgunned by choice. This resulted in the Chief of police being dismissed by the city council after the shootout due to a outroar by the cops and citizens.
The person who bought up the part about cops being outgunned, is just thowing up a smoke screen to hide the fact he hates semi auto weapons and has admitted he would like to see them all taken away.
So be careful when Liberals approach you and want you to jump on their bandwagon and curtail your firearms. They sometimes are very deceitful about their reasons.
As for the cops being outgunned, I spent 30 years on the streets and I never felt outgunned. But then I had a more conservative thinking admin. that allowed me and my fellow officers to carry AR-15s, and Ruger mini-14s.

RELH
 
LAST EDITED ON Nov-05-06 AT 08:18PM (MST)[p]I hate the damn things.
The definitions are dangerous.
I also understand that the second ammendment has absolutley nothing to do with hunting.
Ban them?
No.
Enforce existing laws.
HH
 
Well, that is a definition, but not what I would consider a "good" one or at least my definition fo a good one.

I don't know what Dman considers an assault weapon, but I doubt it is the same description that was created by state legislators in Cali.

As for being "out-gunned", there will always be criminals that will be able to out-gun our police officers at some point. Are you against any "assault weapons" (use your own definition as to what that is)?

I don't know exactly what an assault weapon is, but I have owned a semi-auto Remington centerfire and I killed a pile of ducks this season with a semi. I would hope no one would consider there assault weapons, but obviously there are folks that would.
 
LAST EDITED ON Nov-05-06 AT 08:35PM (MST)[p]Exactly.
The definition is everything.
Just about any rifle I like could be considered a "long range sniper rifle."
I have never been a gun nut that loves guns in general.
I like precision shooting instruments.
They are a tool.
The hunt and the wildlife are everything to me.
I do dislike any thought of the gun grabbers getting traction and would never side with them regardless of how I feel about a particular firearm.
Regulate human behavior.
HH
 
HunterHarry;

You hit the nail on the very head when you stated,"enforce the existing laws". If this was followed it would curtail violent gun crimes in a heartbeat. This was proven in Richmond,VA. when they enacted their "Project Exile". bottom line, any ex-felon, or anyone using a gun in a crime got a automatic 5 years tacked on too their sentence. No exceptions and no D.A.s plea bargaining the 5 year sentence away. One year, gun crimes and other violent crimes dropped around 65 % there. For the gun grabbing liberals information, prior to this, Richmond,VA. had some of the toughest anti gun laws that did nothing to disarm the criminals, only the honest citizen.
There is a catch, the prisons get overcrowed, but I am willing to spend more tax dollars if it will take the criminals off the street.
Most states have a similar law about getting a 5 year sentence tacked on if you are convicted of using a gun in a crime, but the local D.A. will plea bargain this away to get out of taking the case to trial and the perp only does the time for the robbery or parole violation which is less time and chance for parole or probation. This is a perfect law to hamstring most gang bangers due to them having a previous felony conviction. If they are older juveniles with prior conviction, trial them as an adult and lock them away for a min. of 5 years. Just might slow down a few drive bys.

RELH
 
The criminals that are allegedly out gunning our police do not give a rats a$$ what guns you would like to ban Dmanmastertracker. Ban them all you want. They are criminals and will get what ever gun they want no matter what the law is. Banning any gun only removes it from law abiding Americans. So if you want to punish law abiding citizens from their right to bear arms then ban them. The criminals will still get what ever they want. Gun bans do not work!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
Dman, huntindude,

You both have stated in some form of words to ban them all. Where do you draw the line ?

A few men much smarter than all of us once stated:

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin

"Those who trade liberty for safety will eventually lose both."
- Thomas Jefferson
 
That's a good question. I don't beleive giving up nothing is an option anymore, sure the real thugs will get their guns we all know that but the majority of voters think bans on some types of weapons will help. that's the thing about a democracy, majority rules and we're out numbered. when and if the constitution is interpreted differently as some think it should be we'll be SOL, I don't know if that will ever happen but for now if they want to ban things I don't care for I don't care and if it makes us look rational all the better. I don't beleive in the giv'em an inch and they'll take a mile thing, if they could take a mile they would have already. the longer we look like intellegent people trying to get along the longer it will be before we have a showdown, that's not giving in that's facing the facts.
 
>I don't
>beleive in the giv'em an
>inch and they'll take a
>mile thing, if they could
>take a mile they would
>have already. the longer we
>look like intellegent people trying
>to get along the longer
>it will be before we
>have a showdown, that's not
>giving in that's facing the
>facts.


They aren't looking for the mile, they just want the inch. Sooner or later the inches will add up. That's why this is a tough issue; I've no use for assault weapons but I hate giving ground to groups who want to ban my deer rifle.

BTW, if and when I run across someone with an AK-47 in deer camp, I'm going the other way. The argument that these weapons are hunting rifles is rediculous. Assault rifles could be defined like porn; I know it when I see it.
 
You may be right but when you fight for armor peircing bullets and Rambo guns you look unreasonable in my opinion. and you'll probably lose in the end anyway and give anti gunners a victory they'll try to repeat. it's all hard to say.
 
Tylercreek, hunting's been pretty poor so far. Late buck is usually a winner for me, I hope this year is the same. I took a lot of good photos on an elk trip last week I'm trying to get posted.
D
 
dman, cool post em up , a friend of mine's dad just headed up that way to go elk hunting i forget the little town there by , i will see him friday and ask, they have done pretty well i know ,,,,
 
I have two AR-15s and am in the middle of building two more. They are nice rifles and fun to shoot.

Why ban one kind of rifle just because you don't like it. Once they start with one kind of gun they are just going to keep going and take more and more. Some people might think any gun with a scope on it is a sniper rifle so lets ban all scoped rifles. Sniper rifles are only for killing people so lets ban those to.

I bet most the people on this site could do more damage with your hunting rifle then most punks with a gun they find at a gun show.
 
>>huntindude --- the longer we look like intellegent people trying to get along the longer it will be before we have a showdown,

Now I see where you're coming from. Good luck with that.
 
Dman, zigga, huntndude - I really think at times you are not hunters at all - just posting on here as wolves in sheeps clothing.


But as far as banning any weapons and or ammunition.


There are law abiding folks out there that for one reason or another - enjoy shooting in general - not for hunting but just shooting. Are "assault rifles" good to hunt with well it all depends on the person. I have had an opportunity to shoot an "assult rifle" - It was a blast in fact the next gun I buy will be one - just have not decided which one I want yet. Will i use it for hunting - NO will I use it for recreation - YES.

If you want to ban any gun because it is not a "hunting tool" then you are totaling missing the point.

There are hundreds of guns out there on the market today that are not "hunting tools" should we ban all of those? i say hell no!!!!!

Many are used for self defense. Many are used for competion shoots. Many more just for the enjoyment of shooting them.


Another thing - the "Clinton Gun Ban" on assult weapons - guess what did not ban fully auto guns. Fully auto guns where still avaliable to purchase lawfully.
 
I understand your thoughts, huntindude. But, I'm sure there will be no "showdown". Anti-gun groups know they cannot win an all out repeal of the 2nd Amnd, but they can erode our gun ownership rights a little at a time. If you give in on one item that just means they can move on to the next.

It takes two sides to be reasonable.
 
More people die each year from drowning than from assault weapons. Waste your time on something that will save more lives like getting rid of swimming pools. And doesn't it seem silly to blame the swimming pool?

How many crimes were committed in your area this year with an assult weapon?



"One nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
 
If you think they will ever stop just read things like the cop killer bullet ban. most people don't read past the first line. Things like this will pass some day then what.

Introduction
Kerry:

"I've been a hunter since I was about 12 years old, and I went through the whole progression, you know, BB gun to .22s to .30-30, you name it." From The Philadelphia Daily News.

Kennedy:

Another rifle caliber, the 30.30 caliber, was responsible for penetrating three officers' armor and killing them in 1993, 1996, and 2002. This ammunition is also capable of puncturing light-armored vehicles, ballistic or? armored?glass, armored limousines, even a 600-pound safe with 600 pounds of safe armor plating." From the Congressional Record.


Much has been made of the Kennedy Armor Piercing Ammunition Ban. It is Senate Amendment 2619 which was rejected as an amendment to Senate Bill 1805 on March 2, 2004. John Kerry voted FOR this bill. The record of the vote is here. The wide sweeping nature of this bill give us an indication of how radical Kerry is with respect to gun control.

Keep in mind that the .30-30 has never been used in a military weapon and the cartridge has never been available with a hard metal core making it a traditional 'armor piercing' round. If you would like more information on the .30-30 and its long history by Neal Knox, go here.

The bottom line here is the following
Kerry knows exactly what a .30-30 is. By his own statements, he has shot them.

Kennedy believes that citizens should not have access to cartridges as powerful as the .30-30.


Kennedy statements show that he has no clue as to the capabilities of the cartridge. He also reveals that his goal is to ban virtually all rifle cartridges.


Knowing exactly what the situation is, Kerry makes no attempt to educate Kennedy. Instead he votes in favor of this amendment.

What does the amendment say?


The Attorney General will define standards for the uniform testing of projectiles against 'Body Armor Exemplar'.? 'Body Armor Exemplar' is defined to mean body armor that meets minimum standards for law enforcement officers.

Handgun - The Attorney General determines what ammunition is capable of penetrating the chosen body armor.

Centerfire Rifle - The Attorney General determines what? projectile is 'more likely to penetrate body armor than standard ammunition of the same caliber'.

This amendment would change two sections of United States Code: Section 921(a)(17)(B) of title 18 and Section 926 of title 18. This first section of code defines '''armor piercing ammunition'' and thereby changes all laws currently on the books relating to ''armor piercing ammunition'' with the new definition. Section 926 of title 18 defines the powers of the Attorney General with respect to firearms.

If you want to read the amendment for yourself go here. It is in the right hand column.

What did Kennedy say in defense of this amendment?

"We have to ask ourselves, What is the problem? The problem has been 17 law enforcement officers have been killed, according to the FBI, from armor-piercing bullets. Deer and ducks do not wear armor vests. Police officers wear armor vests." From the Congressional Record

Consider: If this is such a concern, what do the experts in the field say? The Fraternal Order of Police is against this amendment. See their letter to Senator Craig.

"Armor-piercing projectiles contain a core of hardened steel or tungsten carbide which allows it to penetrate metal objects. That is what our police officers are up against." From the Congressional Record.

"In a recent report, the ATF identified three, .223 and the 7.62 caliber rifles, as the ones most frequently encountered by police officers. These high-capacity rifles, the ATF wrote, pose an enhanced threat to law enforcement, in part because of their ability to expel particles at velocities that are capable of penetrating the type of soft body armor typically worn by law enforcement officers. From the Congressional Record.

Consider: Here is the real deal on what Kennedy is trying to do with this amendment. If the .223 and the 30-30 is considered too powerful for civilian use, is there any rifle caliber that is ok? This kind of legislation will make large game hunting illegal in any state where a .24 caliber is required.

What effect would this bill have on the sportsman's world?

This is the million dollar question. The effects of this bill are dependent upon the determinations of the Attorney General. Those determinations could change from administration to administration. We do know that the minimum body armor available is referred to as 'Threat Level 1'. It is designed to stop a .38 Special at close range. This bill could immediately outlaw ammunition for any handgun more powerful than the .38 Special.



We also know that virtually every centerfire rifle cartridge produced can penetrate the best body armor available.

If Kennedy were to get what he wanted in this amendment, we could own our guns but never fire them again.





?


?




?



?



?
 
LAST EDITED ON Nov-06-06 AT 11:29AM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Nov-06-06 AT 11:28?AM (MST)

The original post by Dmanmastertracker is fraudulent on the face of it. Dman, please post information supporting your ridiculous claim that many police have lost their lives to assault weapons. "Many," as you surely recognize, is highly subjective. Are more police killed by assault weapons per year than, for example, US citizens are killed by deer-vehicle collisions per year? than US citizens are killed in drowning accidents per year? than US citizens are killed by lightning strikes per year? If not, maybe we need to invest more legislative efforts in limiting deer-vehicle collisions; banning swimming; addressing lightning fatalities.

As another has pointed out, the second amendment does not restrict arms to hunting purposes and in fact there are many legitimate employments of firearms other than hunting. During times of civil unrest -- signal jury trial decisions, earthquakes, professional sport championship games, etc. -- it may well be that semi-automatic weapons having large magazines may be very useful in protecting one's private property from looters.

There are ample laws on the books to provide the needed tools to punish evil doers. The problem with laws, as another has already pointed out, is that criminals don't give a flip about conforming their behavior to the laws. Thus, additional gun laws only reduce the freedoms of the law abiding. Enforce the laws on the books, and criminals are going to be stopped and throttled. Don't enforce the laws on the books and new gun laws will have no impact on crime.
 
Gun bans are just plain stinkin thinkin. They don't work. Why would you want to restrict a law abiding citizen from owning a gun in the first place. That is just plain stupid.
 
Dmanmastertracker

on you link there were 13 articals about cops killer by assault weapons during from 1984 to 1988.

1984
181 cop deaths

1985
175 cop deaths

1986
179 cop deaths

1987
177 cop deaths

1988
194 cop deaths


If i added correct ther were 909 cop deaths in that time frame. Then are all tragic and i don't like hearing about any of them. Assault weapons are not a major cause of these. They just get the most attention from the news people.
 
Go work on the drowning issue. You will save more lives.

Perhaps you could blame the swimming pools and then people will ban them too!


"One nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
 
What about the 35 deaths and dozens wounded in the articles?? A biased opinion is not one that I would necessarily consider an educated opinion. I try to be open minded and some good points have been made pro and con -by a select few (Craig good comments -they show research and thought).
Analadventures calm down!!! Your starting to sound like Ssremmin!!!
 
I have owned all kinds of so called "assault rifles" from AK's to HK's full auto and semi-auto. I have them for collecting and casual shooting purposes and have never used them to kill big game. Anyone that does is a #####-head. Of course it is illegal to take any big game animal with a full auto weapon and IMAO anyone that needs a semi-auto for hunting big game animals should not be shooting at all.
I've killed plenty of coyotes with them but no big game. I like my bolt actions for that.

I can assault someone with a spoon and gouge their eye out and drive the handle into their skull killing them.
Is that considered an assault weapon?
I guess it would have to be nasty looking to be called that. Let's put a ban on all assault spoons.
Sounds ridiculous? Just like the original post.







"RKBA....ALL THINGS CONSIDERED"
 
What about all the deaths caused by swimming pools?

"One nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
 
Depends on if it was full, or empty. Then you could also be charged with false impersonation of a swimming pool...
 
...Shall not be infringed."

If you don't like the 2nd Amendment there are ways to change it. Redefining or flat out ignoring it should not be an option.
 
Gentlemen;

That article that Dman reffered to for his "facts" on violence via assault weapons is from a anti-gun source that does not give the full complete facts. If you want to really see how many times an assault weapon was used on police officers, you can get it from the stats done yearly by the FBI.
In fact if we need to ban a type of weapon that is used to kill cops, the leader will be a semi-auto pistol like Dman bought for his wife, S&W 9mm, and the revolver will be next. Oh! do not forget knives, they have been used more often to kill cops then assault weapons.
I wonder if Dman is going to give up the semi auto pistol he bought for his wife for personal protection. by his logic, it would be the right thing to do.

RELH
 
Gripe about it all you want, they will outlaw Rambo guns one of these days and I couldn't care less. the 2nd doesn't specify that you can own any gun you could ever desire. I'm a serious pre-64 70 collector and have a bunch of O/U's and I figure it will be past my lifetime before those are considered cop killers so you guys go ahead and team up with the gang bangers and fight it out. maybe you're doing my fighting for me but I'm ok with that, carry on.
 
LAST EDITED ON Nov-06-06 AT 08:58PM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Nov-06-06 AT 08:55?PM (MST)




Original post quote: "There are thousands of other guns out there that are plenty enough for me and if it makes our streets safer to get rid of them, I'm OK with it".
If that is the case and what you want, you need to throw your handguns out in the lake, not "assault rifles"
Clinton's assault ban was nothing more than a ban on ugly black guns. A useless ban that did nothing for crime. It is a fact that almost all police shootings and other civilian shootings are done with handguns. pretty much no one walks around with a concealed "assault rifle" but when some occasional nut job does, i love how the media uses the term "automatic weapon" in place of "semi auto". Milwaukee is one of the leaders in shooting deaths and murders this year, almost a shooting a day and i have yet to hear one commited by someone with an evil black long gun.... yep, all handguns and knives. Do your research before you believe what the ANTIS want you to believe.
The assult ban was a 10 year ban and has expired a couple years ago now. Have we all been shocked at the huge step up of crimes commited with "assualt rifles" again now the ban ran out? I don't think so.... they were not the problem in the first place.
I am a gun nut, i love my AK's, HK's SKS's, AR's and anything i can take to the range and blaze away with dirt cheap MIL SURPLUS ammo. I guess its my way of venting frustration and i dont live in an area that has prarie dogs to shoot.
I build my own guns, in fact i just built this one from a once full auto military capture and modified it to satisfy BATF specs and semi auto by replacing the receiver and modifying the trigger group and adding US made parts. I love this stuff, it is a great way to spend a few hours plinking away and building is a great way to use your metal working skills.
If i wanted to take out a bunch of people and go off the deep end i wouldn't use my rifles. I would use my pickup truck at a crowded fair or concert at closing time. Think about it, put it 4wd and stomp the gas when everyone is filing out of the gates and walking down the road. So, would that be considered a "assault vehicle" should 4wd truck be banned then too?
I don't use mine for hunting really. I have shot a couple doe with an SKS but that gun is no different than a BAR, with its wood stock and attached mag. Great gun for a young kid or small woman IMO for deer in tight cover. No recoil, cheap, reliable.
Keep in mind the gun nuts are many, and thier votes and support of the NRA help keep your rights as well.
g3%20006.jpg

g3%20007.jpg

g3%20008.jpg

g3%20009.jpg

g3%20011.jpg
 
like huntindude, I myself do not own any rifle that can be called an "assault weapon" all my big game rifles are bolt action except for one Rem. 760 pump. My hunting shotgun is a SS double. I do have one semi-auto 12 gauge that has been modified for home defense.
Even though I do not own any assault weapons, I respect others having the right to own them, and I am a very strong believer in our rights given down by the founders of this great country.
If every gun owner has the atitude that huntindude has, we will lose our firearms bit by bit. I for the life of me can not understand how a person with any bit of common sense can fall for the anti-gun B.S. that banning certain guns will decrease crime. This fallacy has been proven false numerous times. Our major cities that have some of the toughest gun laws also share the highest homicide rate per capital.
We must bite the bullet, pun intended, and work towards putting the gun using criminals away for serious time and make it mandatory every where, if you use a gun to commit a crime, you are going to prison for 5 addition years just for using a gun. no hope of plea bargains, parole or probation for those 5 years PERIOD!! Yes it will cost money, more prisons and guards, but it will be worth it.
RELH
 
Here is my first black rifle. I just picked up a EOTECH 512 site for it. For my other one the new 20" bull barrel varmint upper should be here in about three weeks can't wait for that one. If you have never took a black rifle and a few mags to the range your missing out.
429617.jpg
 
Here's my assualt rifle.Don'try runnin-you'll just die tired.8 inch group at 1200 meters. Many coyotes have tried outrunning it.
4550668b20a44f3c.jpg
 
Dman: In this article I count 35 people killed, not all cops, and perhaps not all killed with assault weapons (for example, 21 people killed by James Huberty may not have all been killed with his UZI, some may have been killed with his handgun and/or shotgun). 35 people killed with assault weapons over a five year time frame, 1984-1988. I think you have proved my point. If you want to save lives, turn your focus from assault weapons to swimming accidents, boating accidents, lightning strikes.

From 1980 to 1995 391 people were killed by lightning in the United States. See this link:

http://wonder.cdc.gov/wonder/PrevGuid/m0052833/m0052833.asp

That is 26 deaths per year from lightning. You have cited 35 deaths from assault weapons over 5 years: 7 deaths from assault weapons per year. You are going to have to come up with much better statistics to support your argument. So far the information you have cited only supports my point. Assault weapons are not a threat to public safety or to police officer safety, whereas banning assault weapons substantially infringes the freedoms of lawful US citizens.

I'm not a gun dealer or otherwise involved in the sale of guns. I do not own nor do I wish to own an assault weapon. I just support our constitutionally gauranteed freedoms and really resent fear mongering and demagoguery motivated by the notion that government needs to protect us from ourselves and government really knows what is best for us.
 
LAST EDITED ON Nov-07-06 AT 08:18AM (MST)[p]It is pretty clear that the majority following this thread are not prepared to support another ban on "assault rifles." Big surprise. You have heard of the expression "preaching to the choir?"

What is indicative is the view of a couple of the gun owners here. My point is not to convert these people. They are welcome to their opinion. There will always be disagreement in a free society. My point is that if gun owners and hunters see no injury in giving up our current freedom to own "assault rifles" and think that public safety can be effectively promoted by banning "assault rifles," ask your self what kind of thinking and opinions are to be expected among the non-gun owning and non-hunting citizenry?

I discussed this with my liberal sister before the 2004 election. Her basic position was no one needs an "assault rifle." I said the 2nd amendment doesn't restrict arms to demonstrable needs, so proving need is not encumbant upon the gun owner. What if we required those exercising the right to free speech -- such as artists immersing crucifixes in beakers of urine -- to demonstrate their need to their specific flavor of free speech, where would the right to free speech be? Additionally, I corrected her that I can well imagine that some people DO NEED "assault rifles." I suggested the case of a store owner wishing to protect his personal property from looters in times of civil unrest. Well . . . she did not like this argument and did not stand up to it at all.

If "assault rifles" are banned, the gun control crowd will just turn their sights to the next objective in getting rid of guns. Take a look at the flow of gun control in foreign countries to get some picture of how this might play out. Why can't gun control in the United States flow along paths already followed in other countries including Australia and UK? Who thinks that once an "assault rifle" ban is in place that the gun control camp is going to pull up stakes, toast their victory, and go home to lead quiet private lives?
 
LAST EDITED ON Nov-07-06 AT 11:46AM (MST)[p]> One little difference, our forefathers
>didn't carry AK 47's....

Great argument Dman. I'm all for it. Our forefathers carried the exact same weapon as the military.

I'd like that same opportunity. Wait a minute, I do have that opportunity. Just takes money...
 
Huntindude says,
"The Second Amendment doesn't specify that you can own any gun you could ever desire."




It also doesn't specify that you can't. Maybe there was a reason our fore-fathers wrote it that way.
Guess it's left up to ones own interpretation of the amendment and the individuals choice to own one or not. It is my right so I choose to own one.





"RKBA....ALL THINGS CONSIDERED"
 
Interesting thoughts alsatian. I especially like your take on the "need" for an AR and the comparison with the "need" for free speech.

Not to put words in anybody's mouth, but perhaps a sticking point with discussions involving assault rifles is the argument that they are legitimate hunting weapons. This is a ridiculous argument. ARs have a niche and people enjoy owning them, but they don't belong in deer camp. ARs are used for fun and self-defense. That's enough reason.
 
"One little difference, our forefathers didn't carry AK 47's...."

No, but they would have if they could have and it would have ended conflicts much more quickly with less casualities on their side. As stated, they had access to weapons comparable to those they were fighting.
 
To all that say I don't need a semi-auto firearm, I say you don't need a vehicle capable of going over the posted speed limit.
 
I'm with polarbear--step out to 500 meters with an M-16 and an AK is pissing in the wind.
 
Any gun control legislation should be framed in the context of (1) what material increase in public safety can be expected from the legislation, based on competent analysis of effects of other existing gun control legislation; (2) what freedoms are given up by lawful citizens in enacting the legislation; and (3) can the legislation be effectively enforced or brought to bear on wrong doers. This is not currently done.

Dman above cited statistics that 35 people were killed by assault rifles over a 5 year period of time, 7 people annually killed by assault rifles. To place this statistic in a magnitude context, 26 people were killed annually by lightning from 1980 to 1995. My position would be that a ban on assault rifles that would reduce the number of people killed annually by assault rifles to zero would not materially increase public safety. 7 annual deaths is in the noise; substantially more people are killed by lightning every year. And yet, on the other side of the ledger freedoms are given up in enacting such a ban. Some people like to own and shoot these assault rifles. Some people may own an assault rifle to protect their private property from looting during the next Oakland earthquake, during the after math of the next Rodney King trial, during the after math of the next Hurricane Katrina. If I were a private business man with thousands of dollars of store inventory vulnerable to looting during a period of civil unrest, I might want to have a couple of assault rifles to defend my store. I would imagine just letting local looters know that you were armed with such a weapon would be enough to discourage them from busting into your store, you probably wouldn't have to shoot to kill 50 looters. Looters and thieves are cowards, they don't want to attack a prepared, strong position but a weak, unprepared position.
 
One last post on this one for me and truly the last. There were a couple posts in response stating that not enough people have been killed by automatic weapons to matter. What percentage of live's lost matters? One, six, a thousand?? I have never understood that mentality and those are the same people who enjoy mostly only shooting an animal and rarely eat it in my experience. I hunt for the meat, that's my main reason and my perspective is that I feel as a hunter that I have a greater understanding of the value of a life and where my food comes from than a non hunter. A lack of respect for life is pretty disturbing.
 
Dman you're going to get hammered for that comment but since everybody hates me anyway I'll agree with you and I'll even admit I don't care for watching things die on hunting shows. I love to hunt and I do kill but I don't find the actual death of an amimal amusing entertainment. I'm not a cat lover but I know guys who have trapped cats and take them out to shoot with their Rambo guns for fun, those guns and that type person seem to find each other.
 
I've been hammered a few times in my life, I'm still here. I can remember one time that really woke me up when I was about 12 and I caught my first couple salmon with my uncle. My cousin, his son asked me just a year or so later to go hunting with them and I wasn't sure about blasting something yet at that point. My uncle gave me hell, he said; don't you think killing a salmon and a bird are the same? Of course there the same. I felt ashamed that I took the salmon for granted that I had caught. I believe everyone is allowed a "share" of the game out there. When you take more than your share, you upset the balance -like one guy shooting 22 elk in a year and trying to justify it. You can't.
 
Dman--now you've changed your tune from assualt weapons to Automatic weapons-there is a difference you know. And I do agree with you on lack of respect for life--thats why I kill every stinkin coyote I see.
 
Like others have said, "assault weapon" is a slippery slope. Pick your defenition very carefully.

Sniper rifles are great, and semi-auto rifles are awesome, but here in the poison oak patches of the coast I'll take my Rem. 870 stuffed with No.2 Buckshot, thank you very much! Can't beat it for home defense either.

I say shoot what you like, but ONE STRIKE and you're out!

Steve
 
D-Man!!!

WAKE THE HELL UP & SEE THE LIGHT!!!

DO YOU NOT SEE THEM GETTING THEIR FOOT IN THE DOOR???

JUST LIKE HUNTING,LETS PICK ON THE BEAR HUNTERS THERES FEWER OF THEM!!!

LETS STOP THE LION HUNTS IN KALI,IT IS THE EASIEST PLACE TO GET IT BANNED!!!

DO YOU GET THE PICTURE???

I'M GONNA TELL THE WHOLE WORLD,RIGHT HERE,RIGHT NOW,I MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE ANY ASSAULT WEAPONS BUT IF I DO I'D LIKE TO SEE YOU TAKE THEM FROM ME NO MATTER WHAT THE NEW LAWS WILL READ!!!

I GUESS YOU'RE ONE THAT WOULD AGREE WITH BANNING KNIVES WITH BLADES LONGER THAN 6" TOO,HUH???

CARS THAR WILL GO FASTER THAN 65 MPH???

THIS WAS AND STILL IS AMERICA LAST TIME I CHECKED!!!

MAYBE WE SHOULD OF HAD A LAW BANNING SLICK-HOSEM-WILLY FROM OWNING CIGARS???(BOY I'M IN TROUBLE FOR THAT ONE!!!)

WAKE THE ###K UP!!!

A BIG TALL TREE & A SHORT PIECE OF ROPE WOULD CHANGE THINGS WAY QUICKER THAN YOUR THINKING!!!

THE ONLY bobcat THINKING THE ASSAULT WEAPON HAS NEVER KILLED ANYBODY BUT THE LOWLIFE BASTARD THEY'VE LET OUT OF PRISON 15 TIMES HOLDING THE WEAPON HAS TOOK HIS TOLL,DO YOU GET IT D-Man???
 
Bobcatbess said....I'M GONNA TELL THE WHOLE WORLD,RIGHT HERE,RIGHT NOW,I MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE ANY ASSAULT WEAPONS BUT IF I DO I'D LIKE TO SEE YOU TAKE THEM FROM ME NO MATTER WHAT THE NEW LAWS WILL READ!!!

Spoken like a TRUE American!

The only EELGRASS thinking if you don't know where Bobcatbess stands, well, you're not paying attention!
 
Let me re phrase my first post so some can get the gist of what I'm saying. WHAT SHOULD WE DO ABOUT PEOPLE WHO BLAST AWAY AT GAME IN THE WOODS WITH FULLY AUTOMATIC WEAPONS, SOMETHING I'VE SEEN AND HEARD MORE THAN A FEW TIMES!!???? I AM A GENTLEMAN HUNTER AND THAT'S BS BEHAVIOR THAT MAKES US LOOK BAD. ANY SUGGESTIONS OTHER THAN WHINING ABOUT YOUR GUNS???? ANSWER THAN DAMN QUESTION! I'M ABOUT ONE MORE FULLY AUTOMATIC DEER BLAST AWAY FROM TUNING UP A RIG!!! IT'S INEXCUSEABLE! AGAIN FOR THE HEARING IMPAIRED, I'M OK WITH TARGET PRACTICE WITH THIS MACHINERY. THEY DO NOT BELONG IN THE HUNTING FIELD AND IT HAPPENS TOO OFTEN!!! I DO NOT WANT A FULL BAN ON THEM, WHAT I WANT IS FOR SOMEONE JUST TO ANSWER THE QUESTION OF WHAT TO DO ABOUT IT!!
 
WELL ITS FRICKEN TIME YOU SEE MY REPLY!!!

YOU COULD JUST TRY AND BAN THEM ALTOGETHER BUT ME & ABOUT 40,000,000 OTHER PEOPLE AIN'T GONNA LET IT HAPPEN!!!

SO I GUESS THEM JOKERS PACKING 4 EXTRA BOXES OF BULLETS WITH BOLT ACTIONS PISS YOU OFF TOO???

SO WHAT THE ###K DO YOU WANT???

A PARTIAL BAN???

WE COULD TALK DANGEROUS ITEMS USED IN THE IMPROPER MANNER ALL FRICKEN NIGHT LONG,IT AIN'T JUST GUNS!!!

THERES ALOT OF THINGS IN THIS WORLD THAT AIN'T RIGHT,BUT A PARTIAL BAN ON ANY WEAPON IS A BAD MOVE!!!

THE ONLY bobcat NOT CARRYING ASSAULT WEAPONS TO HUNT BIG GAME,I'LL JUST KEEP USING MY .50,IS THAT O.K. WITH YOU???
 
Dman, I would agree with your comments.
Have you ever seen anyone "bump fire" a semi-auto weapon to make it look and sound like a full-auto?
I do it with my AR and AK. I even do it with my semi-auto .22 pistols, but never shoot them at game in this way. That is just wrong.
Maybe there are few hunters in your woods with semi-auto hunting rifles that can squeeze that trigger fast enough to make it sound like full-auto. Maybe they are afraid of missing that first shot and need all the back-up they can get?
Isn't it against the law in your state to hunt with or have in your possesion a full-auto weapon while hunting or in the woods during hunting season? It is in my state.
Maybe you could call or write your state legislators and see what they can do.You could start by having people sign a petition then give it to a state legislator who would support it.May take a while but you might just get it done.
In my state they tried to reverse this law and for the better,it got shot down.







"RKBA....ALL THINGS CONSIDERED"
 
I'LL BET THEY ARE ILLEAGAL TO HUNT WITH IN MANY STATES!!!

THATS WHAT I'M GETTING AT!!!

JUST CUZZ THERES A LAW THAT SAYS YOU CAN'T DO IT DOESN'T MEAN THESE IDIOTS WILL OBEY THEM!!!

ENFORCE EXISTING LAWS!!!

START DOING SOME MAJOR PROSECUTION TO THE JACK-ASSES BREAKING THE LAWS & YOU WON'T HAVE TO BAN THEM!!!

THE ONLY bobcat WONDERING IF YOU COULD GET A PARTIAL BAN ON SPORTS CARS,THEY ARE FASTER,COULD BE MORE DANGEROUS,RIGHT???
 
I don't know any State where it's legal to hunt with a fully automatic rifle. Semi auto yes but not fully auto. Anyone caught using one should face whatever the penalty is.

I think in California it's illegal to even shoot one. RELH, correct me if I'm wrong.

Dman, for what it's worth, the world would be a better place if everyone thought the way you did.

Eel
 
> Let me re phrase my
>first post so some can
>get the gist of what
>I'm saying. WHAT SHOULD WE
>DO ABOUT PEOPLE WHO BLAST
>AWAY AT GAME IN THE
>WOODS WITH FULLY AUTOMATIC WEAPONS,
>SOMETHING I'VE SEEN AND HEARD
>MORE THAN A FEW TIMES!!????
>I AM A GENTLEMAN HUNTER
>AND THAT'S BS BEHAVIOR THAT
>MAKES US LOOK BAD. ANY
>SUGGESTIONS OTHER THAN WHINING ABOUT
>YOUR GUNS???? ANSWER THAN DAMN
>QUESTION! I'M ABOUT ONE MORE
>FULLY AUTOMATIC DEER BLAST AWAY
>FROM TUNING UP A RIG!!!
>IT'S INEXCUSEABLE! AGAIN FOR THE
>HEARING IMPAIRED, I'M OK WITH
>TARGET PRACTICE WITH THIS MACHINERY.
>THEY DO NOT BELONG IN
>THE HUNTING FIELD AND IT
>HAPPENS TOO OFTEN!!! I DO
>NOT WANT A FULL BAN
>ON THEM, WHAT I WANT
>IS FOR SOMEONE JUST TO
>ANSWER THE QUESTION OF WHAT
>TO DO ABOUT IT!!
>

The same thing you should do about fat assed ATV riders that are riding where they shouldnt be. Should we ban ATV's in this country too? My answer is this, if you seen someone use a full auto weapon on any game, you better be on the cell phone to get the local authorities out there in a hurry because it is illegal to use full auto for any hunting anywhere. Personally i have never known anyone who has ever seen or heard of anyone using a full auto assult rifle for hunting.
 
>Dman, I would agree with your
>comments.
>Have you ever seen anyone "bump
>fire" a semi-auto weapon to
>make it look and sound
>like a full-auto?
>I do it with my AR
>and AK. I even do
>it with my semi-auto .22
>pistols, but never shoot them
>at game in this way.
>
>
>

For one thing, you cannot "bump fire" a rifle while hunting game accurate enough to hit anything over 30 yards. Anyone who has done it knows that you cannot do it with any amount of accuracy and no one would even try it because of it.
 
LAST EDITED ON Nov-12-06 AT 04:39PM (MST)[p]In case any of you do not know what bump firing is....
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Ch2LdD6tPxk
http://youtube.com/watch?v=U-nUA52BS3c
You can see that the gun cannot be shouldered and there is no accuracy involved. And yes, you can do this with a BAR, and a remington 7400, or any semi auto shotgun. The semi auto shotgun would maybe be usefull in a riot situation bacause aiming is not really needed. But you can see that this would not be an effective way to try and actually "hunt" because you cannot effectivly aim. My guess is if you hear this out in the field you are probably hearing some moron venting frustration for not finding game within 100 yards of his truck or ATV and not actually hearing someone shooting at game.
 
schmalts, if game was close enough you could hit it bump firing. It is not entirely impossible.




"RKBA....ALL THINGS CONSIDERED"
 
LAST EDITED ON Nov-12-06 AT 05:07PM (MST)[p]>schmalts, if game was close
>enough you could hit it
>bump firing. It is not
>entirely impossible.
>
>
>
>
>"RKBA....ALL THINGS CONSIDERED"
Yea but i really doubt anyone would try it over actually shouldering the rifle and aiming. If you were to actually defend yourself would you consider trying to bump fire at anyone? I sure as hell wouldnt, its useless noise and a waste of ammo unless that is what you were trying to do.
 
Dman;

If you are hearing "full auto fire" in the woods in CA. You are hearing a felony violation of the law. In order to possess a full auto weapon, you have to have a special transfer stamp from the feds. The feds also require that there is no state or local restrictions prior to granting the stamp after you pay for it.
Ca. has a very tought restriction, last time I checked, it is nearly 99.9% impossible to get one. The only known exceptions that I am aware of is some movie studios, or a select few suppliers to movie studios have them. They are required to keep them under lock and key and maintain a very close control on them at all times.
Full auto fire is very easy to detect over rapid semi auto fire. It will be at lease 10 rounds per second and have a even cadance on the string of shots.
I suggest when you hear it again, call law enforcement ASAP so that they can remove another illegal full auto from the hands of a felon and he can go to prison. Tongue in cheek on that last statement, most D.A.'s will plea bragain the prison sentence down to jail or fine to keep from going to trial.
during my law enforcement days, I have confiscated over 5 full auto weapons. Everyone was the result of a citizen reporting the full auto gun fire, and yes two of them were in the woods during deer season. All had been semi-autos that had been converted to full auto fire. Two even had silencers with them. Only two of the five received a prison sentence, they were the ones with the silencers and also had a bunch of narcotics with them. the other three were dropped to misdemeaner charges.
This is a good example of enforcing the existing laws to punish the criminal, not ban more guns and punish the law abiding citizen. Every one of the perps listed above could have received a 5 year prison sentence if the law would have been enforced to the max.

RELH

RELH
 
Good info. thanks. Only problem this year when I heard it near me while hunting (3 times), I had no service and was miles back in the woods. I believe it is illegal in Wa.. I know that in the last three years I've heard it over six times in hunting areas during the season and read one report from IDFG on someone shooting elk from over a mile away with a 50 cal. machine gun! I read this in a local periodical a couple years ago and it was a direct quote. Sounds like some haven't encountered this and that's good to hear, unfortunately I have more times than I care to count...
D
 
I didn't even read all the replies, however, if you let them take one gun, you may as well give up and let them take all. Would you consider abandoning the match grade shooting guns as well since they don't quite meet "hunting" requirements? What next...pistols?
 
SO WHATS YOUR TAKE ON THAT???

SO IF I TAKE AN ANIMAL OR A PISTON AT 1400 YARDS WITH A .50 YOU PROBABLY WON'T LIKE IT???

I'LL BET MORE THAN LIKELY THE .50 WAS A SINGLE SHOT RATHER THAN A "MACHINE GUN"???

I SEEN A TRIBAL MEMBER OPEN UP ON A SMALL HERD OF DEER THIS YEAR WITH WHAT APPEARED TO BE AN AR-15!!!

IT WAS FIRING FAST,I DON'T KNOW THAT IT WAS FULLY AUTO BUT IT MIGHT OF BEEN???

HE EMPTIED THE 30 ROUND CLIP SO FAST I COULDN'T BELIEVE IT!!!

IS THERE ANY LAW ENFORCEMENT AROUND THAT CAN DO ANYTHING TO A TRIBAL MEMBER FOR HUNTING WITH A FULLY AUTO???

I'LL GUARANDAMNTEE YOU NONE OF OUR LOCAL LAW OFFICERS WILL GET INVOLVED WITH IT!!!

SO IF ITS O.K. FOR A TRIBAL MEMBER TO GET AWAY WITH IT SHOULDN'T EVERYBODYELSE ON EARTH HAVE THE SAME RIGHTS???

NO D-MAN,I DON'T HUNT WITH FULLY AUTO'S & I WOULDN'T EVEN IF IT WAS LEAGAL BUT DON'T START STEPPING ON MY .50!!!

THE ONLY bobcat SUGGESTING ANYTHING BUT A BAN OF ANY KIND,START DOING SOME MAJOR PROSECUTION(WHICH WILL NEVER HAPPEN!!!)AND THESE JOKERS WOULD START THINKING TWICE WITH THAT PEA SIZED BRAIN MOST OF THEM ARE PACKING!!!
 
DMan wrote: "There were a couple posts in response stating that not enough people have been killed by automatic weapons to matter. What percentage of live's lost matters? One, six, a thousand?? I have never understood that mentality and those are the same people who enjoy mostly only shooting an animal and rarely eat it in my experience. I hunt for the meat, that's my main reason and my perspective is that I feel as a hunter that I have a greater understanding of the value of a life and where my food comes from than a non hunter. A lack of respect for life is pretty disturbing."

That is a bit of a stretch. Out of what vast experience have you drawn the conclusion that those who cite the low numbers of people harmed by assault weapons are those who only shoot animals and do not eat the meat? That just sounds like a cheap rhetorical ad hominum argument. Just say bad stuff about those who don't bow down and accept your intellectual position and they will fold up their tents and concede defeat.

I was one who cited the low numbers of people harmed by assault weapons. I field dress myself my killed game, I skin and quarter myself my killed game, I butcher and package myself my killed game, and I cook myself -- not my wife -- my killed game. I love game meat. I do my best to waste as little of my game as possible. I try to save the bones of my deer to make venison stock, something I wager few people do. At least in my case the bogus association you asserted between citing few numbers of people harmed by assault weapons and those who hunt to kill and do not eat the game meat does not hold. I will let others who cite the small numbers of few numbers of people harmed by assault weapons speak for themselves.

You failed to see the point of citing low numbers of people harmed by assault weapons. There are benefits and advantages that are lost by banning assault weapons. I have cited some of these above. Before losing these benefits and advantages a rational person weighs the harm currently caused by assault weapons before banning them. I say there is very little harm caused by assault weapons, given available statistics. To provide some personal scale to this "very little" characterization I compared numbers of people killed by lightning versus people killed by assault weapons on an annualize basis. The damage done by assault weapons is less than that associated with lightning. In my view that succeeds in characterizing the risk of harm from assault weapons as "very little."

It is a typical failing of gun control advocates -- those who want to pile on additional gun laws -- that their thinking is as muddled and irrational as yours. No consideration is given to data available on results of gun control legislation. Do tough gun laws in Massachusetts lead to reduced gun crime in Massachusetts? Do tough gun laws in UK lead to reduced gun crime in UK? No consideration is given to what harm may come from piling on additional gun laws. Today, given the low hanging fruit was gathered in long ago from the gun control fruit tree, enacting new gun control laws is purely and simply a matter of posing and enacting "feel good" legislation that has no real effect on limiting or reducing gun crime but does cause harm.
 
Some of you can tell a female what she can and can not do with her body yet you don't want someone telling you what guns you can and can not buy. AMAZING!

Abortion and gun control. Two topics that will never be settled.
 
True Bess. It was a military issue .50 cal mounted to the back of a truck/ jeep from the report I read.
 
Heck Zigga, the abortion issue would be very easy to settle, put it to a vote and let women only vote on the issue. They have more right to that issue then you or me or any other male.
If any man out there feels different, do not express it to my wife, or you will get a earful. She might tell you to quit thinking with your other "brain", and trying to tell her what she can do with her own body.

RELH
 
There is a local game warden in my town that killed an elk one year at a thousand yards with a .50 bolt and he really likes to brag about it. So much that he has a picture of himself and his.50 with the elk and the picture hangs in one of the local sporting goods store. He even talks about it in his hunter safety classes. Hunter Safety classes always stress getting as close to the game as you can, taking that ethical shot and talk about the problem with taking long shots and possibly wounding animals. I say practice what you preach. Remember these are impressionable kids they are teaching. I will be taking my son through hunter safety in a few years and if he brings up his maraculous shot I will question him about good hunter ethics.







"RKBA....ALL THINGS CONSIDERED"
 
D-MAN!!!

PLEASE DON'T MENTION A RIG LIKE THAT OR THESE TARDS WILL START MOUNTING THEM ON THEIR LOWLIFE ATV'S!!!

I BELIEVE A .50 MOUNTED ON A JEEP IS A LITTLE OVER BOARD!!!

AS FAR AS Pronghorn NOT LIKEING THE LONG SHOT WITH .50,WELL THATS WHAT YOU LOOK FOR IS A LONG SHOT,OTHERWISE YOU COULD DO THE JOB WITH A SMALLER PEA SHOOTER!!!

THE ONLY bobcat WONDERING WHAT WHO'LL WON'T LIKE NEXT???
 
I don't like a .50 mounted on a jeep either.Its more stable mounted on my Dodge Flat bed. J/K
 
I haven't read all the posts on this but somebody probably already said it. No matter what you ban, criminals are always going to get there hands on them. When you ban something, you only restrict law abiding citizens. That's something that the gun control folks can't seem to understand.

There is no use for these weapons in hunting. My brother has an SKS, but uses it only for plinking b/c the ammo is so cheap. He doesn't hunt with it.
 
RELH, that might be the best non-hunting post I've seen here. That was really my only point I was trying to poll the audience on, I should have worded it better in the beginning. I'm not a gun control advocate, just an advocate of keeping numbnut idiots out of the woods who think hunting season is WW2... myself, my uncle and a couple acquaintances have all been nearly missed by other hunters in the field -that's bad enough, we don't need those same idiots carrying full auto's after deer. OK, time to go hunting over here. My next post will be on that monster 1X2 I'm going to pop this week.
D
 
Isn't there federal restrictions on FULL AUTOS?
Deer hunters with a fully automatic assault weapon?
WTF?
Sounds like a statistic from friends of animals to me.
HH
 
"My next post will be on that monster 1X2 I'm going to pop this week". I take it you will be hunting in CA. I hope you get lucky and run across a big 4X4 that has been giving everyone the slip.

RELH
 

Similar threads

J
Colorado CPW Commissioner Debate!
Replies
36
Views
2k
jims
J
gr8fuldoug
Enter to Win an Athlon Optic
Replies
0
Views
287
gr8fuldoug
gr8fuldoug
gr8fuldoug
Athlon Winners Chosen - Enter to Win a Pulsar Thermal
Replies
0
Views
159
gr8fuldoug
gr8fuldoug

Click-a-Pic ... Details & Bigger Photos

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

98B44C75-5100-4902-9660-9B25EA394084.jpeg
Success
20160909_181750.jpg
Texas Exotics
bens buck 2.JPG
IMG_0556.JPG
Huge Buck
MFDC0238.JPG
IMG-0753 (1).jpg
20191127_181448.jpg
379015_314150398599563_918375531_n.jpg
IMG_1838.jpeg
Back
Top Bottom