Ridge Runner
New member
Scottymack. You must hunt the Mendocino national forest.
Zumbo is history
- Thread starter sturge
- Start date
cjcj
New member
The Hedgehog
Well-known member
cjcj you're used to that position aren't ya..
cjcj
New member
SneakyJake
New member
One of the guys in my turkey camp uses an AR to shoot P dogs. I had never even shot them until last year, but the farmer asked us to shoot them to help the cattle. They are a varmint. They wouldn't be there if the farm wasn't there. Checks and balance. Do I like the sound of my buddies AR next to my 17, no. It is too loud and brings too much attention. Oh, and it make my pu##y hurt. Oh well, I got over it. When he shoots, I don't hang around. Yin and Yang.
scottymack
New member
Ridge Runner no I hunt El Dorado NatlForest. Mendecino you have to watch your step or you might be mistaken for a big squirrel.
Whiskers
New member
You should be able to hunt with any weapon you choose. AR, Single Shot, spear, knife whatever. Yup, I'm serious, too many people making too many judgements, and laws concerning others, based on personal preference. If you don't want to hunt with an AR..don't.
Zumbo had the right to state his opinion, the same way Remington had the right to terminate his contract.
Zumbo had the right to state his opinion, the same way Remington had the right to terminate his contract.
I agree Whiskers.
I disagree. I don't think there should be a min for some type of hunting. While a 22 works great for squirrels, I don't want to see folks out there chasing deer and lopes with one. Now to really stir the pot, I don't want to see 50cal centerfires chasing the same critters. You want to go and blow up washing machines, cool, but I don't see the need for it on any big game critter found on this continent. Me 2cents
I think gun laws and hunting regulations are different issues. Don't allow any changes in gun laws unless they expand our rights. I too don't like to find empty .50 cal casings on top of a ridge where I deer hunt and support sensible rules/laws pertaining to hunting.
Dangerous Dave
New member
I kinda see Zumbo's point, no matter how badly he articulated it. At the same time it's only a matter of impression and perception... and a situation involving 'the IMAGE we present to the public.'
Quite a few of us could care less what the public "thinks" about gun owners who hunt, and take great delight to pointing out how pointless and contradictory those biased perceptions are. If "the public" is put off and scared how a certain rifle "looks" -only points out how ignorant many of them are.
We've got a congresswoman out here (Diane Feinsteine sp) who banned certain stocks and flash suppressors on various assault-type (SK - AR - M16) weapons, and is considered some sort of hero because of it. Simply because a certain rifle design looks "scary" -it should be banned.
I don't own any assault type weapons because I don't consider them very pratical for hunting. Should they be banned only because I don't use them? Will I be too scary-looking if I try to hunt with one?
Quite a few of us could care less what the public "thinks" about gun owners who hunt, and take great delight to pointing out how pointless and contradictory those biased perceptions are. If "the public" is put off and scared how a certain rifle "looks" -only points out how ignorant many of them are.
We've got a congresswoman out here (Diane Feinsteine sp) who banned certain stocks and flash suppressors on various assault-type (SK - AR - M16) weapons, and is considered some sort of hero because of it. Simply because a certain rifle design looks "scary" -it should be banned.
I don't own any assault type weapons because I don't consider them very pratical for hunting. Should they be banned only because I don't use them? Will I be too scary-looking if I try to hunt with one?
Whiskers
New member
All these rules and laws started out as good intentions. Like SEATBELT LAWS, when they were first inacted they were a secondary offense. You could not be pulled over for not wearing a seat belt. Once the public swallowed that, they changed it to a primary offense. Cell phones the same thing, everyday your stripped of more and more personal freedoms. Heck, can't spank your child without a threat of child abuse. I am tired of scared or sensitive people ruling my life.
BuzzH
Well-known member
Whiskers,
Seatbelt is a bad comparison.
My insurance rates are effected by your lack of wearing a seatbelt. When you fail to wear your seatbelt, get in a wreck and get thrown from your vehicle...other are effected. Like the EMT's that have to rush to the scene to try to save your life.
Heres my opinion:
You shouldnt have to wear a seatbelt. However, if you make the decision to not wear a seat belt, you should admit it and pay higher insurance premiums. You should also waive your right to be rescued by medical personel. If you get hurt from not wearing a seat belt...good...find a way to help yourself...just dont ask someone else to rescue your dumb ass or pay for your "freedom".
Its also fair to note that even with the law, nobody is forcing you to wear a seatbelt. If you dont though, the price of admission is flashing lights and being told to press hard to get your signature on all five copies.
Seatbelt is a bad comparison.
My insurance rates are effected by your lack of wearing a seatbelt. When you fail to wear your seatbelt, get in a wreck and get thrown from your vehicle...other are effected. Like the EMT's that have to rush to the scene to try to save your life.
Heres my opinion:
You shouldnt have to wear a seatbelt. However, if you make the decision to not wear a seat belt, you should admit it and pay higher insurance premiums. You should also waive your right to be rescued by medical personel. If you get hurt from not wearing a seat belt...good...find a way to help yourself...just dont ask someone else to rescue your dumb ass or pay for your "freedom".
Its also fair to note that even with the law, nobody is forcing you to wear a seatbelt. If you dont though, the price of admission is flashing lights and being told to press hard to get your signature on all five copies.
Ithaca 37
New member
"My insurance rates are effected by your lack of wearing a seatbelt". So are our taxes. Some people injured in car accidents get medicaid and go on disability.
A-con
New member
When we start passing laws based on someone seeing a "need" it will be dark days indeed.
Laws, all laws should be based on the actual facts, hard evidence, not perception.
Some people don't see the need for any type of hunting.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I attended the RMEF Grand Banquet last night. Zumbo was one of several “retiring” members of the board honored. He was “unable” to attend, but they really spoke highly of him, and he got a standing ovation. No mention of this controversy.
A-con
New member
Whiskers
New member
BuuzH, Ithica, it was an example. People get hurt hunting, and require Medicaid or Disability. Should hunters or mountain climbers be restricted to where they can hunt in case they get lost, or injured and need help to be evacuated. The government pays for that, it comes out of your tax dollars. Personal responsibility is the key. If your injured for not wearing a seat belt, that comes back to you. If you get lost, and need the coast guard or National Guard to save your ass, you get a bill. You write for a national magazine, and are taking sponsorships from gun manufactures, and you badmouth them folks, you loose your job.
Don't make laws to protect your ass, while restricting my activities. I know you fellas are alot smarter, and more articulate than me. But thats my take.
Don't make laws to protect your ass, while restricting my activities. I know you fellas are alot smarter, and more articulate than me. But thats my take.
JoseCuervo
New member
Whiskers,
You think journalists and reporters should only write what the advertisers want them to write?
Any other parts of the constitution you think should be ignored?
BuzzH
Well-known member
Whiskers,
I'm not picking on you, nor do I think I'm any smarter than you. I just think there is a need for certain laws. The unfortunate thing, that you brought up, is the fact that nobody takes personal responsibility for their actions anymore. If people get lost in the woods they want to sue the Forest Service for not having more signs, more roads, etc. As a result, laws need to passed to protect all the idiots who dont understand personal responsibility.
Like the Zumbo issue...its too bad that people who hunt are not responsible enough to make correct decisions on appropriate firearms to use for hunting. I shit you not...in 1998 I killed a 5 point bull on opening day. I was waiting for my Dad at the truck when this guy from Seeley Lake Montana comes walking down the road. He asks if I'd seen any elk, I told him I shot a 5-point. He asks what I shot it with I told him my .338. He then proceeds to show me his "elk" rifle...a remington 700 bdl in .17 remington. He told me he wanted it for those shots over 300 yards! People like that are the reason laws have to be passed. Same with people who would hunt with AR-15's and other assault weapons...thankfully most hunters are more responsible than that. However, many are not. If they arent smart enough to know better...then the only choice I have is to pass a hunting regulation forcing them to know better. I'm not willing to sacrifice my hunting for their "right" to play rambo with the wildlife or shoot elk with .17's.
One you bring up...being told where you can hunt...while I dont like it, Wyoming does exactly that. As a NR you cant hunt a wilderness area without a guide. Basically telling you where you can and cant hunt. The arguement being that NR's will get themselves lost, injured, etc. Its a joke, but its a regulation in Wyoming.
I'm not picking on you, nor do I think I'm any smarter than you. I just think there is a need for certain laws. The unfortunate thing, that you brought up, is the fact that nobody takes personal responsibility for their actions anymore. If people get lost in the woods they want to sue the Forest Service for not having more signs, more roads, etc. As a result, laws need to passed to protect all the idiots who dont understand personal responsibility.
Like the Zumbo issue...its too bad that people who hunt are not responsible enough to make correct decisions on appropriate firearms to use for hunting. I shit you not...in 1998 I killed a 5 point bull on opening day. I was waiting for my Dad at the truck when this guy from Seeley Lake Montana comes walking down the road. He asks if I'd seen any elk, I told him I shot a 5-point. He asks what I shot it with I told him my .338. He then proceeds to show me his "elk" rifle...a remington 700 bdl in .17 remington. He told me he wanted it for those shots over 300 yards! People like that are the reason laws have to be passed. Same with people who would hunt with AR-15's and other assault weapons...thankfully most hunters are more responsible than that. However, many are not. If they arent smart enough to know better...then the only choice I have is to pass a hunting regulation forcing them to know better. I'm not willing to sacrifice my hunting for their "right" to play rambo with the wildlife or shoot elk with .17's.
One you bring up...being told where you can hunt...while I dont like it, Wyoming does exactly that. As a NR you cant hunt a wilderness area without a guide. Basically telling you where you can and cant hunt. The arguement being that NR's will get themselves lost, injured, etc. Its a joke, but its a regulation in Wyoming.
Similar threads
