[JuneyBooney]

Originally Posted by Dragoon44

Very true, if for no other reason than what is "reasonable" can change from one generation to the next.

I fully agree.



I am not that pessimistic, given the SCOTUS has never even come close to ruling outright bans permissible. The Danger is not an outright ban, the danger is an overly broad interpretation of what is "reasonable that would constitute a in practice a ban.

I agree.

[1smoothredneck]

Originally Posted by Jonesee

2 Points:

I have hunted all my life and have never seen a reason to carry a handgun in the woods or back country. Sure sign of someone who is uncomfortable there or just trying to play make believe.

And. When I carry in a car, the gun is unloaded and packed in a case.

Its not the woods. Its the Goblins on the way!
Know the laws of where you travel! Sorry bout your friend, OP

[philipk]

Originally Posted by Dragoon44

Very true, if for no other reason than what is "reasonable" can change from one generation to the next.



I am not that pessimistic, given the SCOTUS has never even come close to ruling outright bans permissible. The Danger is not an outright ban, the danger is an overly broad interpretation of what is "reasonable that would constitute a in practice a ban.

Agreed.

(Please note I am not saying to following is right or should happen. Also I am using the common media definition of assault weapons.)

IMHO The current SCOTUS would rule the following reasonable.

1. Ban on high capacity magazines.
2. Ban on assault weapons.


Might rule reasonable.

1. Ban on semi-automatic firearms.
2. Ban on pump firearms.
3. Limits on the amount of ammunition you can store.


Would not rule reasonable.
1. Ban on handguns
2. Ban on long guns.

[steveksux]

Originally Posted by jp3975

Deer Attack - YouTube

When you got a guy that reads "Danger Elk urine. Do not spray on body, and he sprays it in his mouth, you can be sure hilarity will result sooner or later.

He's lucky the buck wanted to fight him, it could have smelled the elk urine on his breath and figure he was down for some kinky stuff.

Randy

[maximus1079]

Originally Posted by ithaca_deerslayer

Another thing, if you don't want to carry a handgun, then fine, don't.

If you want to buy your animal already cooked in a restaurant, fine.

If you want to buy your already dead animal from the grocery store, fine.

You want to raise your own animals and slaughter them with a knife, then fine.

You want to go out and chase animals with a rifle, fine.

You want to go after animals with a handgun, fine.

You want to stalk animals with a muzzleloader, fine.

You want to pursue animals with a bow, fine.

You want to trap animals, fine.

What the heck makes one type of those things so much more superior than the others? What makes someone who does the one want to put down people who do the other?

Perfectly worded! Too bad what you're saying makes sense and apparently none of these people who claim to support the 2nd amendment are sticking up for their fellow countrymen who have every right to carry whatever they want wherever they want (except for the guy in the original post). I am from Mass......worst gun laws in the country hands down....and the hoops you have to jump through/egg shells to walk on just to be able to exercise that right is insane. All you gun aficionados across the country don't realize just how good you really have it, so how about we all drop the whole "you'd get laughed at for carrying a handgun in the woods" B.S and just support each other instead of arguing pettily like a bunch of old hens....k thanks

[RonS]

I bet the Australians never thought to see an outright ban.

Or the descendents of the people who wrote and fought for the Magna Charta.

Under enough pressure the supreme court would rule for almost any kind of stupidity. Look at the New Deal and what went into engineering that. Look at the thread on the interment of Japanese Americans during WWII, before the Nazis gave them a bad name the actually called them Concentration Camps. Which is what they were in the same sense of the term as used by the Spanish and British in prior decades.

If it happens it will be incremental. Ban self defense for citizens and thus no legitimate reason for handguns, etc.

[shooter1234]

Originally Posted by Jonesee:
I have hunted all my life and have never seen a reason to carry a handgun in the woods or back country. Sure sign of someone who is uncomfortable there or just trying to play make believe.

Originally Posted by G29Reload

Nonsense. Unless you beleive in fairy tales or that nothing ever happens in the woods and you don't have to worry about bears, or feral dogs, or stumbling over someones meth lab, then yeah, the woods are perfectly safe.

Yea, because you know, the rifle in your hands with ten trillion times the destructive power of any pistol usually isn't good enough for "feral" dogs or shooting a meth lab worker. It ONLY works on deer and nothing else. Hell, for that matter ya mind as well carry your bullet proof vest on the hunt as well. Screw it, why go in half prepared? Right?

[Dragoon44]

I bet the Australians never thought to see an outright ban.

Or the descendents of the people who wrote and fought for the Magna Charta.

I don't know why not, Australia was an English colony and England had no history of the right to keep and bear arms by the common English subject. That right was restricted to the nobility.

[DanaT]

Originally Posted by RonS

Under enough pressure the supreme court would rule for almost any kind of stupidity. Look at the New Deal and what went into engineering that. Look at the thread on the interment of Japanese Americans during WWII, before the Nazis gave them a bad name the actually called them Concentration handguns, etc.

That is exactly why i said Leo without looking at the morality of following an order is simply an order away from a KZ guard.

But let summarize rebuttal "our friends" in Leo will have.

1). That was different

2). You people are stupid

3). You can't judge us unless you have walked in our shoes.

I think it's a good summary

So, how would one judge the KZ guards if they never walked in their shoes ?

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

[DanaT]

Originally Posted by RonS

Or the descendents of the people who wrote and fought for the Magna Charta.

etc.

10 pound sterling bet I can find an instance where an "educated" and "intelligent" Leo on GT will/has made a stupid post showing that they don't even know US law and rights are based upon upon the magma carta. They will probably even say only nobles were afforded right but then are uneducated to the point they have never read it.

10 pound sterling bet anyone?

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

[Dragoon44]

Dana,

Feel free to start a thread on the subject and I'll meet you there.

That way your whining won't derail this thread.

[JD HHI 6092]

Originally Posted by GVFlyer

Sadly, this is an amazingly naive post. It must be nice to live in a world of unicorns and rainbows.

[method]

Originally Posted by shooter1234

Yea, because you know, the rifle in your hands with ten trillion times the destructive power of any pistol usually isn't good enough for "feral" dogs or shooting a meth lab worker. It ONLY works on deer and nothing else. Hell, for that matter ya mind as well carry your bullet proof vest on the hunt as well. Screw it, why go in half prepared? Right?

What about those that hunt with a bow or a muzzleloader?

[dugo]

Originally Posted by Jonesee

2 Points:

I have hunted all my life and have never seen a reason to carry a handgun in the woods or back country. Sure sign of someone who is uncomfortable there or just trying to play make believe.

And. When I carry in a car, the gun is unloaded and packed in a case.

Uh ... this quote from early in the thread keeps coming up in other posts, so I have to ask help with some confusion.

The best guesses from all others with relevant experience seem to suggest that the claims in the first sentence are contradictory. This suggests the realistic probability that Jonesee must have either NOT "hunted all (his) life", or he has NOT "never seen a reason to carry a handgun in the woods ... (etc.)"

Nothing personal, but logically, with all due respect to Jonesee, everything Jonesee suggests after that has to be kept in question until some adequate explanation of this apparent contradiction is on the table.

Until then, shouldn't we be done with this?..........

[Ed: By the way, I do sympathize with the OP. I had a friendly acquaintance who was stopped in Jersey years ago, and almost got charged with a felony (I think) for having a gun in the glove box (legal where he came from). He was on vacation with his wife and kids -- bad time for them, too.

Lost the gun, and did a night in jail, but was more than lucky to get away without more lasting problems. Yes, he should have checked the law. The only reason he got off that easy was that he was "connected" through his work. Was really scary for 24-36 hours, though. Potential jail/fine, criminal record, career gone ... Very lucky guy.)

[dugo]

Originally Posted by alwaysshootin

Pssst, jonesee has been gone since he last chimed in on post #21. Just saying.

Oh ...Hmmm ... so Jonesee is like a stealthy sniper .....

[dugo]

(Edit: Delete; double post.)

[Ohio Copper]

What was the outcome? No doubt by this time he's had at least a preliminary hearing and or a pretrial?


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire

[maximus1079]

Stop all your whining! Try living in Taxachusetts....I mean Massachusetts where you need permits from owning a gun, to owning ammo, to purchasing gun oil (okay slight exaggeration but you get the point). Bottom line, don't own a firearm of any kind unless you are properly educated in ALL aspects of it......that includes crossing a state line to any other state.