50 cal ban in Idaho proposed!

[SDS-GEN]

Redhawk, I stated in my posts that a ban on 50cal. is not the solution.  I think most people here agree that banning a gun for any reason is wrong according to the second amendment.  However a national magazine(Field and Stream) just published an article about hunting with the 50BMG.  The guy took three shots at an elk before connecting.  Would anyone here take a shot at big game that you had about a 33% chance of making?  This article shows me that either A:this person doesn't have the skill to make a clean kill at 1000 yards, or B:The equipment isn't up to the challenge of consistently making the shot under field conditions, or C:both.  So what do we do about the idiot behind the trigger?  Which is really the case in most "I've got a new reason to ban a gun" crusades by the bunny-huggers.  They will pick up something like this article and use it against us.
I have shot a 50BMG, it was fun, I can't ever do it again (medical reasons), but what it comes down to for me is a big bullet doesn't mean you can shoot beyond your skill or the weapons capabilities whil hunting.  Its no different than flinging an arrow at a deer 100 yards away, or taking a shot at one that is 200 yards away with a smoothbore slug gun.  The animals we hunt deserve better than this.

[Redhawk1]

SDS-GEN, take the distance out of the equation. Now you have a guy shooting a 30-30 at 100 yards with open sights. This guy maybe shoot's once or twice a year. Now he goes hunting and misses 4 deer opening day and finally connect on the 5th deer, his odds are 20%.  Do we now ban 30-30's  because the guy can't shoot? I have seen a lot of guys that can't shoot but go out hunting. They are neither shooters nor hunters. But they hunt. It is kind of hard to ban stupidity.  I agree with you that, "the animals we hunt deserve better than this".
I have seen seasoned hunters miss at short distances shooting at game, it happens not just with 50 BMG shooters.

Ranger J , in 35 years of hunting I have never seen anyone hunting with a 50 BMG. I have hunted in Colorado, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Alaska, Maryland, Delaware, West Virginia, Maine, Pennsylvania and Florida.

[nomosendero]

Ranger J, no way do I believe it is happening on any thing approaching a large scale. In none of my several trips hunting out West have I heard it mentioned.

Redhawk, your reply was right on target. Sadly, this type of a problem of some hunters being sloppy & not practicing is a FAR, FAR
more common problem than the subject of this thread. And SDS-Gen, you also pointed this out when you gave the example of a
person flinging an arrow at a Deer 100 yards away or a 200 yard shotgun attempt. Someone's misuse of a weapon is not the fault
of the weapon, nor is it a just cause to take away the rights of those who use the weapon in a responsible manner, whether it is
a 50BMG or a bow or shotgun.

Liberals however, condem the weapon & not the person who misused it. This is why when a robber kills a cashier at a 7-11 with a .357, they want to ban the .357 & at the same time not worrying about the robber getting off with very little punishment. The
same principle is in play when the Libs want to ban certain weapons for hunting. Both situations stated just become a "tool" or
excuse for Libs to propose bans & the 2 cannot be separated.

[corbanzo]

SDS-GEN, take the distance out of the equation. Now you have a guy shooting a 30-30 at 100 yards with open sights. This guy maybe shoot's once or twice a year. Now he goes hunting and misses 4 deer opening day and finally connect on the 5th deer, his odds are 20%.  Do we now ban 30-30's  because the guy can't shoot? I have seen a lot of guys that can't shoot but go out hunting. They are neither shooters nor hunters. But they hunt. It is kind of hard to ban stupidity.  I agree with you that, "the animals we hunt deserve better than this".
I have seen seasoned hunters miss at short distances shooting at game, it happens not just with 50 BMG shooters.

Ranger J , in 35 years of hunting I have never seen anyone hunting with a 50 BMG. I have hunted in Colorado, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Alaska, Maryland, Delaware, West Virginia, Maine, Pennsylvania and Florida.

You are bringing up a great point here.  I have never been one to try and knock a different hunting style, I believe that styles and diversity in the ways we sportsman take game is one of the think which makes our sport so beautiful.  there are certain rules which every sportsman should follow.  A .50BMG can kill someone, I agree with that, does that make it unsafe?  A .44 henry flat can also kill someone, but its only got about 300ftlbs of energy.

So we take our 30-30 guy as menitoned above, and we take our .50BMG guy.  We make sure they have what they need:

1) Competance with their firearm.
2) A clear target picture.
3) A clear range between shooter and target.
4) A sufficient backdrop.
5) A range within their shooting abilities.

If they have all of these, then they are abating the danger.  Either shooter will be dangerous if he does not have all of these things.  I think we all need to understand what "within your shooting abilities" really means.  All of the above examples of how many times they missed or what they wounded were people that were going outside of their ability.  THAT IS NOT THE FAULT OF THE FIREARM.  The 50BMG is not to blame, the shooter is.  I do know a lot of hunters who are just plain lazy, and want to take the easiest way out.  I also was raised by my father who was shot in the spine when he was 12, he still taught me about hunting and fishing, even though he had a lot of trouble getting around.  You know what he got shot by?  A .22lr from about five feet on accident by a good friend. 

So should we ban the .22lr? 

How about we ban accidents. 

[Dusty Miller]

I propose the upper limit be a 3" howitzer!

[dukkillr]

I propose the upper limit be a 3" howitzer!

Oh so you're in PETA now too?  Don't you understand that if you kill an animal with an F/A 18 hornet or mortar it's still hunting and if you disagree you might as well be an ACLU PETA LIBERAL GUN GRABBING FAIRY.  The rule is simple, if you try to change a hunting law you're wrong.  At least that's the way I've come to understand the argument.

[nomosendero]

I propose the upper limit be a 3" howitzer!

Oh so you're in PETA now too?  Don't you understand that if you kill an animal with an F/A 18 hornet or mortar it's still hunting and if you disagree you might as well be an ACLU PETA LIBERAL GUN GRABBING FAIRY.  The rule is simple, if you try to change a hunting law you're wrong.  At least that's the way I've come to understand the argument.

Of course, he may have said this in jest. 

If this is how you understand the argument, then you don't understand it. There is no problem with laws such as NO Deer hunting at night, out of season, killing over the limit, etc. If the bag limit laws need to be changed or other HUNTING  laws for the sake of sound game management, no problem. So, I would say you are on your own page.

[dave hall]

You guys know there no end to this right. :DJust like the 338 Win. question on the Africa forum.PA has been wanting to ban the .50 for years I don't keep up with it.They will someday they always get what they want. ::)Dave

I can't get the smileys to work.Whats up.

[Redhawk1]

I propose the upper limit be a 3" howitzer!

Oh so you're in PETA now too?  Don't you understand that if you kill an animal with an F/A 18 hornet or mortar it's still hunting and if you disagree you might as well be an ACLU PETA LIBERAL GUN GRABBING FAIRY.  The rule is simple, if you try to change a hunting law you're wrong.  At least that's the way I've come to understand the argument.

If that is the way you perceive the argument, this is fine. Any time you put down a way a person hunts and it is legal, you are WRONG. No one is asking you to hunt that way, if you don't like it, it is very simple, don't do it. But let others enjoy there LEGAL right.  Just because you don't agree with the "legal" method of hunting is not a reason to change it. Can you understand that?

[dukkillr]

Can you understand that?

LOL.  What I understand is that rules change, often as a result of new technology.  For instance, when electronic duck calls were invented they were legal and no one used them.  As they had a larger and larger impact on the culture of hunting they were outlawed.  Times, technology, and popular sentiment all change, and that leads to changes in regulations.  Certainly pre-WWI there was no rule against automatic weapons for hunting, but eventually they became an issue that had to be dealt with.  As muzzleloaders have evolved states have had to define and limit what is considered legal in their seasons.  40 years ago any muzzleloader would count as a muzzleloader.  Since then time, and technology has changed, and the rules have adapted to fit them.  Millions of game animals were shot from moving vehicles (trains mostly) but now that's illegal, and I think we all agree it should be.  Using CBs or Walkie-Talkies to herd game wasn't illegal until it became an issue.  I could go on, but you get my point. 

There is a school of thought that roughly assumes that anything that's legal is also right.  I don't share that though.  Sometimes things are legal because it has never become an issue before (the .50 for hunting fits here).  Sometimes things are legal because there isn't enough knowledge (the american buffalo eradication and lead waterfowl shot jump to mind).  Sometimes things are legal based on error (prohibition jumps to mind).  In short there are plenty of reasons why laws (or the lack there of) may not be right.  Laws change, and to assume something that is legal is also right seems like a dangerous assumption to me.  Part of it may be my aversion to knee-jerk reactions, part of it may be that I prefer to think about something rather than always use a standard line like, "It's legal, you must be an anti."

This, of course, is to say nothing about public opinion.  Ultimately it will be public opinion which will make this change.  If what NONYA says is true .50s will eventually be banned, I have no doubt.  It is, after all, a democracy.  And I'm confident that what he describes would not be supported by a majority of hunters, let alone the general public.

Remember that while gun ownership may be a right, hunting is not.  The ownership and enjoyment of a BMG is different from hunting with one, at least legally speaking. 

[billy_56081]

I'm sure PETA and hangun control inc. just love using some hunters and gun owners as allies. Are you guys sure you want to allie yourselves with them?

[Redhawk1]

dukkillr, you did not disappoint me. I knew you would come back with all them excuses, it was the Anti-hunting pressure and anti-gun crowd that came up with laws making certain guns, call etc illegal. It was not a self policing of hunters and gun owners. So before you start thinking we as hunters and gun owners agreed with all of this, let me tell you, you are wrong.

Yes hunting is a privilege, but if it is legal to hunt a certain way, it is now my right to hunt that way, weather you or anyone approves or not.
You don't agree with the 50 BMG because you don't like it, if someone wanted to ban a gun you were using and enjoyed using, you would probably be one of the guys saying that is not right. But as long as it does not impact you personally you choose to turn away from the issue.

Is it that easy for you to turn your head at the issue at hand? I would hate to have you on my side when the going gets rough, you would probably just lay there and roll over for whatever the anti's want.

Sorry but your argument does not hold water with me.

[SDS-GEN]

Wether you all like it or not, wether its right or wrong (in anyone's opinion), Dukkillr is correct.  The "moral majority" decides what is right or wrong(read legal/illegal) and they will decide wether this gun will be legal for hunting.  Morals are subject to change and most of our laws are based on what is morrally right at the time according to the MAJORITY, or a very loud minority.  Remember once upon a time a conquering army would throw the babies of defeated from the fortress walls, it was morally OK, it sure wouldn't fly in modern society, our morals have evolved and changed.  The way these people hunt will be seen as immoral to the majority and an attempt to make their activities illegal will be made.  To make the activity illegal the antis will try to ban the 50BMG, that's just the way it is.  The antis will see this as an opportunity to ban a gun, the other people in the majority will see it as a way to stop "slob hunters."  Prepare for these arguments if you want to fight for hunting with the 50BMG.

[Redhawk1]

Wether you all like it or not, wether its right or wrong (in anyone's opinion), Dukkillr is correct.  The "moral majority" decides what is right or wrong(read legal/illegal) and they will decide wether this gun will be legal for hunting.  Morals are subject to change and most of our laws are based on what is morrally right at the time according to the MAJORITY, or a very loud minority.  Remember once upon a time a conquering army would throw the babies of defeated from the fortress walls, it was morally OK, it sure wouldn't fly in modern society, our morals have evolved and changed.  The way these people hunt will be seen as immoral to the majority and an attempt to make their activities illegal will be made.  To make the activity illegal the antis will try to ban the 50BMG, that's just the way it is.  The antis will see this as an opportunity to ban a gun, the other people in the majority will see it as a way to stop "slob hunters."  Prepare for these arguments if you want to fight for hunting with the 50BMG.

Total BS. Anti-hunters want to ban ALL HUNTING what don't you guys understand. Anti-gun people want to ban ALL GUNS. It is not a question of morals.  Sometimes I don't know why I bother trying to make since with people unable to understand. Take my post how every you want. But I am done trying to convince the Anti's here that don't even know they are anti's. 

This thread as worn thin on me as well as select few here. Go back to putting your head's in the sand and wait tell it is one of your guns they come after. I hope I never see the day that will happen, but if it does, I will be there to tell you, I TOLD YOU SO.

The anti's have fewer supporters than the hunters and gun owners, yet they keep winning battles in our gun right and hunting laws. Why you ask? Because so many of you are willing to just lay down and roll over for them. This thread is proof positive it lives right here at Graybeard.  If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck,  it is a duck.

[45/70fan]

Redhawk, you've got it right. Now is the time to draw a line in the sand. First they ban the 50's and that just opens the door for more. I imagine semi-auto's would be next, then any repeating arm, then ALL GUNS!! Look at the mess they have in Australia and Great Britian, crime rates through roof since all the gun bans took place. I guarantee it started out the same way over there. As long as politicians attach some sort of "we're making you safer with this" message to it the American people will eat it up. I personally don't think the 50BMG has any place in hunting, but that's not the point here. They are messing with our
RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS plain and simple. If we all don't wake up and stand up soon, hunting and shooting will be nothing more than a memory.

[SDS-GEN]

Redhawk, I think you misinterpretted the meaning of my post, and Dukkillrs.  You are right that the antis want to get rid of all guns and hunting and live in some Disney like fantasy land.  Banning a gun, any gun, for any reason, is a big step in the direction they want to go.  The point of my post is to point out just how and why this will happen.  The same way it is happening in Austrailia and G.B., the same way it has already affected hunting in the USA.  If we don't have a majority of sound minded people on our side we loose, remember the Clinton "assault weapon" ban.
Nobody is bringing any support to the gun owners/hunters by calling them "antis" or grouping them with PETA or HCI.

[SDS-GEN]

You are right on this Nonya, the "if your not with us you're against us"  attitude doesn't bring more people to your cause.

[billy_56081]

If you are against a form of hunting, that would be an anti hunting position.

[SDS-GEN]

Who do I send my membership dues to at PETA?

[Mac11700]

Well said Dukkillr and those of you that want to start labeling those who dont agree with you on every hunting/gun related issue as antis or PETA,you are the weak link,you talk of being united but chastise other hunters and gun nuts when they disagree on an issue,sad.

You know what is sad...What's sad is you clowns really don't understand what your doing...or...maybe you do... You think because you don't want to use something...that everyone thinks the same way...and you piss & moan till you get it and many other things banned...PETA loves guys like you...Keep up the good work....Oh...by the way...education had absolutely nothing to do with the almost eradication of the buffalo...that had to do with the purposely staving the plains Indians...and pure greed...1 other thing...all the BS about lead shot...and all the ducks & geese & doves that it has supposedly killed...BS...They based all of that non-sense on a couple of birds found...NOT THE THOUSANDS there were supposed to be...but...you go right ahead and keep believing the crap that those who want to stop all sport hunting and taking of animals will feed ya...Most of us here have tried to tell ya...but you are acting more like their mouth pieces every day...and if you get p o'd about it...to bad...The old saying seems fitting to me....If it walks like a duck...and quacks like a duck..it probably is one...

Mac

[nomosendero]

Nonya, thanks for the creative answer & I am sorry it took several days for you to respond.

[Redhawk1]

OK  here is one for you guys, when ever there is a gun issue or hunting issue and there is talk of a compromise, why is it we as hunters and gun owners always are the only ones giving? The law makers give to appease the Anti's. The Anti's ask for a bunch of stuff and maybe get a couple of what they wanted. Now the Gun owners and hunter are the only ones that loose in these so called compromises. And we are suppose to be thankful that we did not loose them all.  
Who keeps pushing and who keeps giving. Come on NONYA, SDS-GEN, dukkillr, you guys want to give just because you don't choose to hunt as other do, so therefor it is not something you choose to defend. It must be rough going through life with blinders on. You three remind me of three guys on TV many years ago. And it is not the three Amigo's.  

When was the last time you seen the hunting community or the gun owners actually get something back? Once it is gone it is gone for good.  

This thread reminds me of conversation I have had with PITA and Anti-gun crowds. They are just as relentless as these three.  Yes it is a, are you with us or agents us, make your choice, it can't be both ways. No being on the fence either, pick a side and go there.

[dukkillr]

OK  here is one for you guys, when ever there is a gun issue or hunting issue and there is talk of a compromise, why is it we as hunters and gun owners always are the only ones giving? The law makes give to appease the Anti's.

I can't speak to all areas of hunting but I can say that conservation order goose hunting is a new program that dramatically increased hunting opportunities and loosened rules (late seasons, no plugs, electronic calls, open refuges, etc).  The antis are opposed (amazingly i'm not, despite being declared by many of you to be an anti) and they've lost at every turn. 

In the two states I deer hunt (kansas and missouri) the regulations have been dramatically loosened in recent years, much to the dismay of antis (I bowhunted today, January 26th during a season that didn't exist 2 years ago). 

Theres's two rules that I've personally witnessed that benefit hunters and antis oppose.  That's to say nothing of increased limits on almost everything i can think of.  Managed hunts in parks are frequently declared by the powers that be.  They are then protested by antis (strangely, without my attendance) and then the hunts go on as planned.  Hunter harrasment laws have been passed in many states in recent years.  In the late duck season last year I watched police escort some antis away.

Bear hunts in New England have gone forward, as have elk hunts over objections. 

[nomosendero]

Facist, now that's funny, especially coming from you!  

I have been reading about a new round (fairly new), a 50BMG necked down to 416cal., it can actually fly better than a 50. Well we better get those boys!!  

Then you have the big 338's with the 250-300 gr & over bullets, you could say their range is between a 300mag & a 50cal. What about that? If the big 338 is capable of 750 yards & they are & further, do we need to drop down to that group & include them? They can be set up on a table or bench too, or they may use a 40 pound 300 mag. bench gun. Oops, they are acting like the 50 boys now & they may be even be fat, have personal tags & belong to a country club. Yea, these cartridges & types/weights of guns
& ranges fired can blend into one fuzzy ball in a hurry & WE ALL KNOW IT!!!

No, this is dripping with hypocrisy. It is OK for Nonya to speak of shooting Deer at 600 yards with a 300WM as he has mentioned (I
agree, BTW & am allways ready to do the same) & then condemn a 50 cal guy for shooting a Deer or Elk at 1,000 (800 yds. just as appalling no doubt). I have seen the attitudes toward the RUM & other rounds as they will outrange the 300WM a bit. So I guess what we all need to do is check with Nonya & ASK what rounds we can shoot.

No doubt these fat boys with the Trucks, must be long beds to handle the 4 wheelers & the bench behind it, or is it trailers, anyway,
they must have permission to hunt the area & the method is known by the landowners. Otherwise, they could not be out there with all of that gear otherwise. If it's Fed. land & they are doing something wrong you would have reported them long ago since you hate them so much. So, if the landowners don't care, it is NONE of your business, period.  I know that when I hunt gov. land & I
go into an area where there are other hunters, I move. If I am hunting a Ranch like I do now in WY., we stay in contact with the
Ranch owner & he tells us which area we hunt & tells others where others can hunt. Makes more sense than banning a 50, 338 or a
308, just common sense stuff.

You talked about how the Elk were less skittish in the past, sounds to me like you in the past ran these same roads, spotted the Elk
& shot near the vehichle or were able to do a little stalk, nothing wrong with a short stalk, but I would not want to ban a weapon just because you have to work harder now, as you mentioned. Sounds like these boys shot a few Elk further away than you could & it ticked you off! If you had been hiking over the mountain to begin with this discussion would have never occured.


  

[nomosendero]

Dukkillr, as I mentioned before & as you know, no one here objects to making seasons longer or sometimes shorter to promote sound
wildlife management, which BTW has absolutely nothing to do with a 50 cal. ban.

Mac beat me to it, but the reference to Buffallo huinting was way out there. You said "sometimes things are legal because there isn't
enough knowledge". What actually happened was the complete opposite of what you stated. Knowledge is actually what caused the eradrication. The Gov. implemented the distruction of the Buffalo to bring the plains tribes to their knees & sadly it worked. Not
cool in my book to try to change history or to have ignorance of it, whichever applies. I have made sure my kids are aware of why
the herd was killed off & if I have anything to do with it my grand kids will know as well. Besides, I am not aware of any widespread
game regulations in those days & I am not aware of any regulated sport hunting that brought about the demise of any game species
in this country.

[Redhawk1]

OK  here is one for you guys, when ever there is a gun issue or hunting issue and there is talk of a compromise, why is it we as hunters and gun owners always are the only ones giving? The law makes give to appease the Anti's.

I can't speak to all areas of hunting but I can say that conservation order goose hunting is a new program that dramatically increased hunting opportunities and loosened rules (late seasons, no plugs, electronic calls, open refuges, etc).  The antis are opposed (amazingly i'm not, despite being declared by many of you to be an anti) and they've lost at every turn. 

In the two states I deer hunt (kansas and missouri) the regulations have been dramatically loosened in recent years, much to the dismay of antis (I bowhunted today, January 26th during a season that didn't exist 2 years ago). 

Theres's two rules that I've personally witnessed that benefit hunters and antis oppose.  That's to say nothing of increased limits on almost everything i can think of.  Managed hunts in parks are frequently declared by the powers that be.  They are then protested by antis (strangely, without my attendance) and then the hunts go on as planned.  Hunter harrasment laws have been passed in many states in recent years.  In the late duck season last year I watched police escort some antis away.

Bear hunts in New England have gone forward, as have elk hunts over objections. 

dukkillr, there you have it. When we as hunters stick together and push legislators and law makers we can get things. But it takes a lot of work on our part as hunters and gun owners. I know I have gone to a lot of late night meeting to support new bill introduced to legislators and the powers to be, but without our support we would not see any of it. You better believe when a new gun season or hunting regulation is introduced there will be the Anti's there, again I know, I see them when I go to support the bills.

Some bill I have no real actual interest in, but I still support the guys wanting the bill to pass. How do you think all them new hunting seasons, bag limits and bear hunts get passed, not by sitting back and letting the law makers introduce the laws themselves, but from us hunters and gun owners that are there supporting them. But as soon as you as a hunter or gun owner side with the Anti's, even if you don't consider yourself a anti you have aligned yourself with them and they pick you out as a hunter and gun owner that supports there agenda, which is to stop any new legislation or gun laws to pass.

So before you support any laws to ban the 50 BMG, think about what we do to just keep what we have and how hard we have to fight to get what we want. The anti's have nothing to loose but everything to gain. Get off the fence and get back where you belong.

[Don Fischer]

Nomo,

Get your fact's straight. Nonya doesn't do it with a 300mag, it's a 7mm mag and 160gr TSX's. I gotta tell you guy's, even tho I would appose a ban like their talking about, Dukkillr is kicking you guy's butt's. Your calling him everything but human and he hasn't done the same back. Usually when people have no good argument, they resort to name calling. You guy's ought to quit that. I doubt anybody in this discussion is an anti hunter.

Great job dukkillr, but this time I think the otherside is right.

[Redhawk1]

Nomo,

Get your fact's straight. Nonya doesn't do it with a 300mag, it's a 7mm mag and 160gr TSX's. I gotta tell you guy's, even tho I would appose a ban like their talking about, Dukkillr is kicking you guy's butt's. Your calling him everything but human and he hasn't done the same back. Usually when people have no good argument, they resort to name calling. You guy's ought to quit that. I doubt anybody in this discussion is an anti hunter.

Great job dukkillr, but this time I think the otherside is right.

In my opinion saying someone is an anti anything is not name calling, but calling a duck a duck. 

[nomosendero]

Don, in the thread 25-06 for big Mulies, he mentions using both the 7mm Mag & the 300. In the post where 600 yards is mentioned, it is not said which it is & as you know it has no relevance, are you saying he could do it with the 7, but not with the 300?   
Sorry if it was the 7mm or if it was a 270 or whatever, nothing to do with this thread & nothing to get your panties in a wad about.

I cannot find where I called Dukillr anything, but I will keep looking unless you are in reference to where I used the term Liberal in a general sense.
Not about him, but I think he called himself that in "Round The Pot Bellied Stove", so even if I did refer to him it could not be called name calling. Besides, someone could call me a Conservative & I would be honored, so I don't know. And I don't see how someone is kicking butt when they are wrong according to history (Buffalloes & Lead P.) & make comparisons that don't relate, but that is just your opinion & I have mine.

And I don't remember calling anyone a Commie, but I do remember the word facist being used by someone who is complaining about name calling.

Yea, I am editing this post again as I cannot find where I called the man anything, so Don get your facts straight!

[Mac11700]

Don...We didn't draw the line in the sand...The anti's did...and when I say anti's...I mean even those who support any type of gun control or legislation that will infringe on MY rights...If Nonya or dukkllr wants to support that legislation...I will call them as I see it...I am not about to sugar coat the truth to someone who is now being a  hypocrite...It doesn't matter how long they have hunted...how many heads of game they have taken..how many bag limits they have shot...They know dam well this is a war we cannot afford to loose...and here they are helping the cause of the likes of Kennedy...Fienstien...and Brady...Peta & the Humane Society...and I am called a fascist ...If standing up for the rights of gun owners makes me a fascist...then I am proud to be one...but...If I am a fascist...( and since you agree with us...that makes you one too ) ...and since we are on the side of gun owners...and they are not..Tell me...what does that make them?......

The line in the sand was drawn long ago when they started taking our gun rights away from us...Give these people and organizations your support ( of any kind )...and you are an ANTI...period...

Redhawk1...your right...we can't afford to be fence sitters any longer...Bills are already being formulated as we bicker amongst ourselves here that will deny us our constitutional rights to own several types of guns... I urge folks to put aside their personal differences and look at the total picture here...If they still want to be so self righteous and lobby against the 50 cal...They have to understand that they are cutting off their noses to spite their faces...and are the laughing stock of the Anti's...because they are so gullible...and easily manipulated...

Nonya...I personally have no wants...or desires to hunt with a 50 cal... they are noisy..heavy...and expensive to shoot.and have stated that to you before...I am not a troll...nor am I being immature here...and even though I am a moderator...I too can state my opinion...Your stance..wither you choose to believe it or not...is giving aid to the enemy we all have been fighting for so long...Why can't you understand that...? Will you continue to allow your personal dislike of their style of hunting to support legislating away our rights ?...

Mac