I thought there was already a thread regarding this, but doing a search I realized the idea came up as offshoots on other topics.
This caught my eye in this mornings ABQ Journal
Praise The Lord and Pass the Ammunition!
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/CalThomas/2007/12/13/praise_the_lord_and_pass_the_ammunition
Don if nobody had guns nobody would die from them.... People who want a gun will make any arguement. Like I need to protect my house the criminals have them... they deter violence or crime.... blah blah blah...
Getting rid of guns (or the nasty ones in my opinion) does not encourage crime or reduce safety at all... I look at the constitution and think that the guns they had 230 years ago would suffice today for hunting and protecting our homes... laser sighted automatic weapons that fire 100 rounds in 10 seconds are not needed to fulfill the requirements of freedom under the constitution.
Maybe it's just me but the constitution says ARMS not guns. To me arms includes all wepons not just muskets. Where does one draw the line and why? To say that the constitution grants us the right to own a Remington 30-06 bolt action and not the right to own M16 or an Abrams tank is quite a leap in my opinion. Either it grants the people the right to own arms or it doesn't. Nit picking over which arms is nothing more than rewriting the constitution. My personal opinion is that it garantees the rights of the states to form their own malitias independent from the federal government and that members of those malitias shall have the right to keep and bare what ever arms that malitia uses. All adult citizens should be considered members of the state malitias. So bottom line is the states have the right to decide which wepons we can have not the federal government.
This is all my opinion ofcourse yours may differ.
Scott
Hmmm......The 2end amendment was enacted to keep the Government and the people equal. You have to realize that without state of the art weapons (for the day) we would be drinking Taxed Tea and singing God save the Queen.
The same constitution that gives you the right of free speech, is the same one that gives me the right to own arms. I will fight for the right of free speech, no matter how much I disagree with what you say, just as hard as I will to keep my guns.
The Second Amendment, as passed by the House and Senate, reads:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
The original and copies distributed to the states, and then ratified by them, had different capitalization and punctuation:
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
"...the right of the People" seems pretty clear to me. I am one.
"...shall not be infringed." Period. That doesn't state that 'this group' or 'that group' can infringe the right, but that 'other group' over there can not.
Quote from: benevolance on December 13, 2007, 12:47:51 PM
Don if nobody had guns nobody would die from them....
n* ::) [crz] That cat's been let out of the bag so to speak. No we'd be bludgeoned with blunt instruments instead. Or stabbed with sharp ones. Or garroted with ropes or wires. Or...
Check the latest figures on the UK and Australia to see if taking away their citizens right to own firearms made them any safer. They are not. They have more gun related violence being perpetrated by criminals. Criminals don't obey laws... that's by definition...
(n) criminal, felon, crook, outlaw, malefactor (someone who has committed a crime or has been legally convicted of a crime)http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=criminal
Well We could debate this... But if I send you a reply you do not like I am sure you would just delete it... So we might as well drop it... you win might administrator
Peter, if you remain civil and in good taste nothing you say/type will get deleted.
whatever you say, oh mighty administraitor
While I agree that we have the right to bear arms, I don't think anyone needs assault rifles and some of the weapons available that are really made for no other purpose than killing humans...However, I think it should be a matter of common sense, not legislation. I do not own a gun currently. If we ever move back to a rural place, we will have one. I used to have a gun rack in my truck. We always had guns when I was a kid, and we knew beyond any exception, we were not to touch them without permission. My grandpa kept a loaded revolver in the nightstand and a loaded .22 standing in the other corner behind the bedroom door. Twice, he used the guns to keep people from breaking into the house through the garage (there was actually a guy picking the lock between the garage and my bedroom one time!) I used one when I was about 15 and alone on the farm to get rid of a couple of guys who didn't want to pay for peaches. More than once, Grandpa shot dogs who were killing our calves. Guns are useful.
I've always thought it wasn't the right of a citizen to keep arms, but the DUTY. IF people today were to study the Constitution/Bill of Rights in the context in which it was penned, they would understand the reason for an armed body of citizens is to protect the country from those who would steal power and control from INSIDE Washington and not from without.
This has been tried before and is being tried again, right now. Several things have to happen for it to be accomplished...Fear in the people...the military serving the Commander in Chief over the people of the Nation...unarming of the common citizen....government control of the free press.....Executive Branch usurping power from the Legislative and Judicial...Lincolon did it and Bush seeks repeat it.
Many of these are being attempted today. The question is not is it being done, or will it continue to be done...but at what point will American citizens regain enough backbone to stop it....or IF the citizens of this country will just sit by and watch while our country is pissed away by the greedy, power hungry sickos we have in our capitol.
Gov. is planning on the people getting fed up. They have already prepared the concentration camps. Search Haliburton US concentration Camps for info.
Blackwater - recently nearly getting kicked out of Iraq for murder and abuse recently stated that they are wanting to cut back on their overseas deployments (read getting kicked out) and concentrate on domestic security -- read - protect scared gov officials against citizens. Boy - If these guys weren't religious buddies of Bush I'd be worried about them. Remember - they were already deployed in New Orleans after Katrina to keep the blacks from trying to go home and other such crimes.
peg,
not to start WWIII here ;) But if the public are armed to the teeth as is the case in America...How is it that the government have systematically removed our freedoms and enacted illegal laws that rape us financially with taxes for wars and the funding of our allies like Israel?
Wouldn't by your own beliefs and arguement an armed population prevent the government from even attempting to make a mockery of our freedoms and constitution?
Yep, I fear that Blackwater is the SS of the Administrative Branch. They are a threat to our nation and NOT a help.
BUT, as I said....what can be done. Short of armed confrontation, I can't see a fix. I would rather we had a strong leader who would return the country to the Constitution, but other than the two I've mentioned before (Paul or Biden) there's none to pick from. I really believe either of these men would repeal some of the illegal power of the executive in favor of the powers granted by the Constitution, but any of the others...pick one...will just be another power maniac, Dictator wanna be.
Lincoln usurped power and every President who's followed him has tried to add to the power base of the executive branch .... We, the people, can't focus on REAL issues for worring about gay marriage or taxin churches....While we fight over this nonsense...the Executive becomes more and more powerful....
Maybe most Americans had rather follow a Dictator? It sure is lookin that way :-\
It will probably have to get a lot worse before it gets better. That could happen quickly.
Small uprisings will likely be put down with massive force so the armed public won't be able to do much of anything to stop the creeping cancer that is Washington DC and the slimeballs who are in power.
Americans follow a dictator? Most will if their unelected president tells them it is best for them. They only want to be taken care of. Shrub has said more than once that a dictatorship is OK if he is the dictator. Is he leaving? Maybe if someone worse can be "elected". Funny how that word is similar to enacted.
WND Exclusive WEAPONS OF CHOICE
National firearms ban 'reasonable'?
Gun owners warn arguments endanger Second Amendment
Posted: January 19, 2008
By Bob Unruh
© 2008 WorldNetDaily.com
A Second Amendment advocacy organization is asking the Bush administration to withdraw a legal brief that leaders fear could be used to support "any gun ban – no matter how sweeping," as long as some court somewhere determines it is "reasonable."
The concern comes from Larry Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America, whose group is pleading with the Bush administration to withdraw an anti-gun brief filed by the U.S. Solicitor General in a Supreme Court case regarding a District of Columbia ban on handguns.
Paul Clement
The document from U.S. Solicitor General Paul D. Clement noted since "unrestricted" private ownership of guns clearly threatens the public safety, the Second Amendment can be interpreted to allow a variety of gun restrictions.
His brief suggests gun rights are limited and since they are subject to "reasonable regulation," all gun limits imposed by the federal government should be affirmed as constitutional.
"Given the unquestionable threat to public safety that unrestricted private firearm possession would entail, various categories of firearm-related regulation are permitted by the Second Amendment," he wrote in the brief.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59770
D.C. Court of Appeals Blocks Reckless Lawsuit
Friday, January 11, 2008
On January 10, the District Columbia Court of Appeals found that the "Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act" (PLCAA) blocked lawsuits under D.C.'s "Strict Liability Act." (The court is a local body equivalent to a state supreme court, and different from the U.S. Court of Appeals that overturned the D.C. gun ban last year.)
D.C.' s law had tried to make manufacturers, importers, and dealers liable "without regard to fault or proof of defect" for illegal use of guns¾a principle rejected by nearly all courts that have ever looked at the issue. In this case (District of Columbia v. Beretta, U.S.A.), the D.C. government tried to sue to recover health care and emergency services costs supposedly created by criminal gun use in the District.
Calling the District's arguments "imaginative," the court found that D.C.'s lawsuit didn't fall within any of the PLCAA's exceptions for legitimate suits, and that allowing the suit would "frustrate Congress's clear intention" in passing the PLCAA. The court also found that the PLCAA is constitutional, both in terms of separation of powers and due process.
The case is a major win for the firearms industry. It's not yet known if there will be any further appeals. As always, we'll keep you posted.
Copied from the NRA (http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?id=3360)
DC again... a real hotbed of anti gun activity
D.C. Files Brief in Heller Case
Friday, January 11, 2008
On January 4, the District of Columbia filed its brief in District of Columbia v. Heller, now before the U.S. Supreme Court. The District is appealing the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit's ruling that found D.C.'s bans on handguns, on having any gun assembled for use within the home, and on carrying a firearm within the home without a permit, violate the Second Amendment.
In March 2007, the Court of Appeals ruled that the amendment protects a "pre-existing right to keep and bear arms . . . premised on the commonplace assumption that individuals would use them for these private purposes [including self-defense], in addition to whatever militia service they would be obligated to perform for the state." And it found that handguns are the kinds of "arms" the ownership of which the amendment protects.
The District wrongly contended that the amendment "protects the possession and use of guns only in service of an organized militia," and that James Madison and others responsible for the amendment considered that "keep," "bear" and "arms" referred to the maintenance and use of firearms for militia purposes alone.
The District claimed that "keep" means either for an individual to possess guns only for militia purposes, or for a state to "keep up" a militia, a theory the Court of Appeals said "mocks usage, syntax, and common sense." The Court of Appeals added, "Such outlandish views are likely advanced because the plain meaning of 'keep' strikes a mortal blow to the collective right theory."
The District furthered argued that it is not subject to the Second Amendment because the Supreme Court ruled in Presser v. Illinois (1886) that the amendment "is a limitation only upon the power of Congress and the National government" and, according to the District, does not limit the states. The District, despite its longstanding wish to the contrary, is not a state, and is therefore obviously subject to the amendment. The District also ignores the Supreme Court's comment in Presser that because "all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the States," the states "cannot ... prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security ...." (The application of the amendment to actual states, rather than would-be states, is not an issue in this case.)
The District noted that the Supreme Court, in U.S. v. Miller (1939), suggested that the amendment protects arms that are "part of the ordinary military equipment," but apparently failed to comprehend that modern handguns are commonly issued to military personnel and are also useful for another of the potential duties of the militia, namely, law enforcement.
As if looking for even more ways to undercut its case, the District also claimed that in the mid-1970s it "sensibly concluded" that gun bans would make the city safer. Of course, as is well known, the city's murder rate tripled within 15 years after D.C. imposed the ban.
Briefs by those challenging D.C.'s laws, and "friends of the court" supporting them, will be submitted over the next several weeks, with oral arguments expected in March. Keep watching this alert for the latest news on this historic case.
From NRA (http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?id=3359)
Leading Democratic Candidates Call for Severe Restrictions on our Second Amendment Rights
Friday, January 18, 2008
With the Presidential nominating season in full swing, trying to pin down the various candidates' unequivocal stance on issues of import can often be difficult, if not impossible. Amidst their political posturing and refining of positions at the recent Las Vegas Caucus, Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY), Senator Barack Obama (D-IL), and former Senator John Edwards (D-NC), were asked a series of questions about the gun issue. All called for severe restrictions on our Second Amendment rights.
To view a video of the exchange, please visit our NRA-Political Victory Fund website (www.nrapvf.org (http://www.nrapvf.org/)) and click on the video feed in the center of the page.
...above from NRA (http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?id=3386)
Poll Finds 66% of Voters Want No New Gun Laws
...from NRA report (http://www.nrapvf.org/), page bottom...
A recent Zogby International poll conducted for Associated Television News found that 66% of the American voting public rejects the idea that new gun control laws are needed.
The poll asked: "Which of the following two statements regarding gun control comes closer to your own opinion? Statement A: There needs to be new and tougher gun control legislation to help in the fight against gun crime. Statement B: There are enough laws on the books. What is needed is better enforcement of current laws regarding gun control."
Conversely, the poll found that just 31% of the American public thinks new and tougher gun control laws are needed, and that voters who support better enforcement of existing gun laws are found across virtually all demographic groups, and in all regions of the country.
...and as reported by CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/12/16/guns.poll/)...
Nearly two-thirds of Americans say they believe the Constitution guarantees each person the right to own a gun, according to a poll released Sunday.
In all, 65 percent said they thought the Constitution ensures that right, and 31 percent said it did not. The question had a sampling error of plus-or-minus 3 points.
Men and people living in rural areas were most likely to say the Constitution guarantees the right to own a gun.
Nearly three quarters of men (72 percent) said they believed so, versus 26 percent who did not. More than half (58 percent) of women said they believed so, versus slightly more than a third (35 percent) who did not.
That question had a sampling error of plus-or-minus 4.5 points.
Among rural dwellers, 73 percent said they agreed, versus 64 percent and only half (50 percent) of city dwellers who thought the same.
That question had a sampling error of plus-or-minus 7 points.
The Second Amendment to the Constitution says: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
advertisement
Some have interpreted those words to mean that everyone has a right to own a gun; others say the amendment protects only the right of citizens to form a militia.
Leader of anti-gang group was selling guns
The director of the antigang organization No Guns, which the city of Los Angeles once paid $1.5 million to steer Latino youths away from a life of crime, pleaded guilty Thursday to illegally selling assault weapons to federal undercover officers.
full article in the LA Times (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-noguns18jan18,1,2239748.story?coll=la-headlines-california&ctrack=1&cset=true)
Anyone else get the same visual?
"The Right to Bear Arms"
Ok I am picturing everyone with the arm of a bear and using it as club. Thus making an early statement true that if we didn't have guns we would find other ways to beat each other.....
Now I hope I gave you all a visual on the Right to Bear Arms...... :)
If they could ban alcohol thay can ban anything. Never mind the fact that if you go strictly by the constitution none of the senetors legaly holds office at this time. By the way DC is not the only city that bans handguns so does Denver.
Careful, Stink, or I'll have to tell my firearm joke again.
http://countryplans.com/smf/index.php?topic=1720.msg15677#msg15677 for those who haven't had the privilege.
I just couldn't help myself...I went and read it ****groan*****
Not even a snicker? hmm
I have been going prospecting in areas where Marijuana growers farm. It is public BLM property and I will not tolerate them taking my right to use it by shooting at me so... I have taken to wearing my .380 when out there in case I have uninvited unfriendly guests.
I don't have and don't want to get the concealed carry permit so I wear it on my belt when alone. I figure I can at least protect myself if they want to cause trouble.
StinkerBell, I gotta admit your comment does give one a graphic image... ::)
MtnDon, you will be proud of me, I joined the NRA last month! Glenn didn't even know until I told him tonite ;D But I've only shot a gun a few times in my life - a friend had an air gun that she had me shoot a few times - she was into guns & believed you should have them & know how to use them in case you were in a situation where they'd come in handy... My son had me shoot a couple times - he told me I should know how to use a gun, also - especially because I am way out in the country by myself a lot in the valley & also in the mountains, although Glenn is usually here.
Another time, I was doing an interview for a local newspaper at a gun club where they were "reloading" they let me shoot a couple times.
Oh, and I did hold a machine gun down in Mexico one time... c*
Glenn, I believe in situations like you describe wearing one in the open is better than concealed.
Sassy. Woo-Hoo!!! Good for you. I believe knowing how to handle a firearm is a good thing.
Thanks, Don. Makes sense to me.
Hey, Don, my buddy accidentally made me a left handed holster instead of right handed one, and I wear it on my right side - rather backward but it doesn't interfere with my cell phone/pliers holder and stays pretty well out of the way when I am bending, driving, working etc. I don't see it as being a situation where I'm going to be into quick draw or anything - just need to retrieve it in case I need to run behind a rock and shoot back. What do you think?
I've never owned my own guns... though I've been around them most of my life. What type of gun, and where to buy one? As we will hopefully soon be living in a more rural area, we'd like to buy one but would like to hear your recommendations. I am not to fond of shotguns as every one that I've ever shot kicks really bad. Maybe just a .22 rifle?
A .22 is a pretty effective weapon - in fact many people underestimate them. Range of over a mile (not for shooting, but danger zone), and for a general purpose gun for no special reason I think it is great. Shooting problem varmints without waking everyone in the neighborhood, it is my first choice. I go to my 30.06 for bear problems or high accuracy and stopping power. .22's can be very accurate also, and they are cheap to shoot.
The other guys are bigger on guns and I'm sure can help more but that is my choice. I use my Beretta .380 Auto Pistol for ease of carrying and lots of bullets -- not especially accuracy, but I can be a fair shot.
Quote from: Homegrown Tomatoes on January 19, 2008, 11:17:41 PM
I've never owned my own guns... though I've been around them most of my life. What type of gun, and where to buy one? As we will hopefully soon be living in a more rural area, we'd like to buy one but would like to hear your recommendations. I am not to fond of shotguns as every one that I've ever shot kicks really bad. Maybe just a .22 rifle?
It depends on what you want it for. I have my 12 ga shotgun loaded with 3" Mag Slugs and OO Buck to do a job on large game close range and that includes the 2 legged types too if needed. If you want stopping power it will get the job done. Now for the little varmits that get in my garden I have a 22Cal 10/22 Ruger with a 4 power scope. It works great right out the 2nd story window over the garden plot. I also have a Ranch Mini 14 with assorted mags of different capasitys for my plinker but it also works for different stuff. Long distance I use my M-14 Springfeild Match Grade with 7.62 rounds. The Ruger SP101 pistol with +Ps .38 Cal Hydro Shocks works for a concealable & managable hand gun for personal protection. It just all depends what you want or need them for in what to own. I have several for differnt stuff. If I had to chose only one it would be my 12 ga shot gun. I do not hunt anymore and my fire arms are for protection of my place and livestock. I may have to deal with a mountian lion, bear, coyote ect on the ranch due to our many animals here. Mark
(http://www.kountrylife.com/gallery/3409.jpg)
You pose that question to 6 people, you'll get six different answers. At least. :D
A .22LR rifle is a good tool to practice with. You can buy a box of 500 for under $20. It doesn't get any cheaper. A .22 can be effective against a lot of small predators that might be after your chickens for example. Even if you don't hot them, they'll run off for a while. Even bigger animals, like bears, will likely leave the area if you shoot in their general direction. Just don't make the mistake to hit one, it'll get very angry.
HGT, what's your intention, your intended use? Varmints? Bird hunting?
As for where to buy... you could start by inquiring at a local gun club. Talk to some owners, they're usually a friendly lot. Once you narrow down what you want gun shows can be a good place. Also watch the local classified ads for used guns.
A handy resource for checking prices on new guns is Gallery of Guns (http://www.galleryofguns.com/). It's a site run by Davidson, a gun distributor. Click on Gun Locater and you can search out types, find area dealers and see prices.
I started with a .22LR single shot used rifle my Dad gave me. Still have it. The first gun I bought was another 22, a semi-auto and I still have that one too. I added a few over the years, sold some, regretted some, and have a small arsenal now. Hard to say for sure what single gun I'd pick if I had to choose just one, but that's because I do hunt; deer, elk, ducks, mainly, and there's a "best" for each, although deciding that too will cause a lot of arguing about what's best.
Oh, and I love scopes to the point where I hardly have a rifle without one.
Quote from: glenn kangiser on January 19, 2008, 11:33:56 PM
A .22 is a pretty effective weapon - in fact many people underestimate them. Range of over a mile (not for shooting, but danger zone), and for a general purpose gun for no special reason I think it is great. Shooting problem varmints without waking everyone in the neighborhood, it is my first choice. I go to my 30.06 for bear problems or high accuracy and stopping power. .22's can be very accurate also, and they are cheap to shoot.
The other guys are bigger on guns and I'm sure can help more but that is my choice. I use my Beretta .380 Auto Pistol for ease of carrying and lots of bullets -- not especially accuracy, but I can be a fair shot.
There is or has been a lot of 1,200 lb steers in my freezer that a 22 cal dropped on the place. Course when it came time to drop our 1,800 lb bull I used the Mini-14 cause his head is thick and I did not want to just make him real mad do to his size and abilities to do some serious damage. Mark
(http://photos.imageevent.com/willy/winterfeeding/websize/WINTER%20FEEDING11.JPG)
Really nice looking dead bull. What breeds do you have, Mark?
A friend has some mini-angus looking cows - says they don't try to get out of the fences so bad.
Quote from: glenn kangiser on January 20, 2008, 10:51:48 AM
Really nice looking dead bull. What breeds do you have, Mark?
A friend has some mini-angus looking cows - says they don't try to get out of the fences so bad.
We have Scottish Highlands, Angus and Angus Cross, Longhorns, Herfords and a few totaly mixed breeds. Then add to that around 30-40 goats, maybe 60 rabbits, 20-30 chickens, 2 horses and 3 newfoundland dogs. A lot of mouths to feed and they go thru over 70 ton of hay during the winter!! I am glad we have the big barn to store it in and the facilities to deal with them. It all started out my daughter wanted a couple calves 12 years ago and I am not sure what happen after that!!?? Mark
(http://photos.imageevent.com/willy/winterfeeding/websize/WINTER%20FEEDING20.JPG)
They look soft and cuddly Willy.
Well, I guess the reason for owning one (besides defense) would be mainly to chase off critters. DH has *talked* about hunting, but has yet to take anyone up on the offer of going on a hunting trip (he seriously needs to take a gun safety class first.) If we ever do raise our own beef, I'll probably pay someone else to butcher it... don't think I could do that myself, and I've got an aunt and uncle who run a small meat processor/ butcher shop, and would likely pay them to do it. Besides, figure I need to experience my rights before they are all bargained away by politicians. And, I like to target practice... used to be fairly good, but haven't shot a gun in so long I'm probably pretty lousy by now.
By the way, Mark, those Scottish Highlands are so cute... I always liked Charolais (sp?) for the same reason. Our neighbor had a herd of them when I was a kid, and I always thought they looked like marshmallow cows. Our Hereford/Angus crosses weren't quite as cute, which is probably why I never had any problem eating them.
Quote from: Homegrown Tomatoes on January 20, 2008, 03:07:59 PM
Well, I guess the reason for owning one (besides defense) would be mainly to chase off critters.
If that's the case a good 22LR could do the job. As said before cheap to shoot so you can practice all day and not break the bank or your shoulder. Depending on range it may scare 'em more than kill 'em.
For more serious varmint critter shooting any of the "22" varmint calibers would offer more power; 22WMR, 22-250, 222 swift, .223, etc. 223 ammmo can be had fairly reasonably. And the newer .17 cal would deserve a look. But these are not choices for deer hunting.
Quote from: StinkerBell on January 20, 2008, 02:48:05 PM
They look soft and cuddly Willy.
They are like big fuzzy puppies till they grow up into something like this Bull! This ones a big push over and not a bit of mean till he meets another bull then look out and give them all the room they need of want to work it out! Mark
(http://photos.imageevent.com/willy/winterfeeding/websize/LACHLAN%20BOB2.JPG)
I'll never forget the year that my Grandpa bought Grandma her own shotgun for her birthday... she was always complaining that his gifts were not practical/ were too romantic, etc. (yes, she's a bit of a knothead) so he got her a shotgun. Boy was she pouting for a few days! I thought it was hilarious.
Glenn, your story about prospecting in the area where marijuana growers have their crops reminds me of a time when I was working at OU's biological station for the summer. We were in SE Oklahoma collecting plants with a bunch of highschool kids... we'd noticed a lot of marijuana growing (and were naive enough to think it was wild) as we went into a swamp to collect aquatic plants. It was somewhere in the McCurtain County Wilderness Area, and we were in a clearly marked university vehicle parked up on the main road. Well, just about the time we got up to our belt buckles in the murky swamp water and the kids were happily collecting duckweed, two good ol' boys came out of nowhere with their shotguns and their Redman rings in their pockets, and their rottweilers, and they escorted us back to our ride where we thanked them and sped away as quickly as possible. That day, I really wished that at least one of us had been packing! I thought a few of the kids were going to pee their pants or hyperventilate before we got back to the van, they were so scared. Now I can look back on it and laugh, but at the time, we weren't sure that anyone would ever find our bodies in the bottom of that swamp.
Willy,
I have a very very NOVICE question. When you slaughter your cattle do you or can you use the hyde for something other then leather pants.... :) The fur reminds me of a Polar Bear (I have no idea why) so with that reference it looks like it would make a good rug or blanket.
Quote from: StinkerBell on January 20, 2008, 07:00:40 PM
Willy,
I have a very very NOVICE question. When you slaughter your cattle do you or can you use the hyde for something other then leather pants.... :) The fur reminds me of a Polar Bear (I have no idea why) so with that reference it looks like it would make a good rug or blanket.
My Daughter has a Tanning Buiness at home and tans the hides "Hair On" at home. She has made rugs, wall hangers, couch throws ect out of them. People have bought them for making chaps out of also. I think they would make a neat jacket for winter. She sells alot of leather stuff on ebay and is allways adding new stuff all the time. Mark
http://search.ebay.com/_W0QQsassZlnghrn
Quote from: Willy on January 20, 2008, 07:41:48 PM
Quote from: StinkerBell on January 20, 2008, 07:00:40 PM
Willy,
I have a very very NOVICE question. When you slaughter your cattle do you or can you use the hyde for something other then leather pants.... :) The fur reminds me of a Polar Bear (I have no idea why) so with that reference it looks like it would make a good rug or blanket.
My Daughter has a Tanning Buiness at home and tans the hides "Hair On" at home. She has made rugs, wall hangers, couch throws ect out of them. People have bought them for making chaps out of also. I think they would make a neat jacket for winter. She sells alot of leather stuff on ebay and is allways adding new stuff all the time. Mark
http://search.ebay.com/_W0QQsassZlnghrn
This is a picture of the tumblers for softning the hides in I built and a few hides she tanned. Took a long time to build these and get them to turn at 28 RPMs the best range to do it with. Now the room is all sheeted off and not as clean! Mark
(http://photos.imageevent.com/willy/tanningdrum/websize/HIDE%20DISPLAY3.JPG)
I could see on a very cold winter night (maybe with no heat) using that as a warm toasty bed cover......
Oh yes.....
I also see glenn and Nethog in a Fred Flinstone and Barney Rubble Outfits.......... rofl
I imagine you see me as a real knockout drop dead hunk, eh?, Stink? ???
Yabba Dabba Not Exactly.......lol
rofl rofl rofl
BTW, nice skins, Willy! :) they look nice & warm
While we're at it -- what is the main use of cow hide?
Just a guess...Leather?
I asked Glenn & he wouldn't tell me ::) I asked him if it was for shoes, he said "no" but I think I have it figured out ??? What covers the insides of a cow??? ;D
I dunno maybe they like that game... you asked about Cow Hide.... I think they hide and the others seek... d*
Quote from: glenn kangiser on January 21, 2008, 02:32:50 PM
While we're at it -- what is the main use of cow hide?
Most of the people that buy it use it for little projects. A guy just came over and bought some Buck Skin Leather to make a Bag out of for Musket Balls and Black Powder stuff of the olden era. Mark H.
While we're at it -- what is the main use of cow hide?
To keep the Cow warm.................. :) ;D ;D rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl
Quote from: peternap on January 21, 2008, 05:19:58 PM
While we're at it -- what is the main use of cow hide?
To keep the Cow warm.................. :) ;D ;D rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl
Now that is funny! Mark
Peter knows. My original answer was "To hold the cow together."
Quote from: glenn kangiser on January 21, 2008, 11:21:40 PM
Peter knows. My original answer was "To hold the cow together."
Darn both these are great answers I can't wait to ask Shelby what's the best use for cow hides tomorrow!! Mark
Willy,
Your not to far from, so maybe this summer I can head out and see some items for sale?
Quote from: StinkerBell on January 22, 2008, 12:04:55 AM
Willy,
Your not to far from, so maybe this summer I can head out and see some items for sale?
Let me know when you coming and I can put you in touch with Shelby my Daughter who does all this. Mark
Great! Thanks!
Cheney against gun ban? http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23075904/ (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23075904/)
The supreme court is set to hear the case regarding the gun ban in DC in march. Bush does not want this case heard and wants it sent back to the lower courts. The problem they have is this. If the court rules against the ban which it must if the right to keep and bear arms is to be preserved it will set a precident to challenge all federal gun control laws currently in place. The government is not yet ready to kill the second amendment since they know this will trigger a revolt of unknown magnitude. Best course of action is to not address it at all at this point. I belive they are waiting for the current generation 40+ year olds to die off or get to old to matter before they kill the second amendment. They know they will face fierce resistence from this group.
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court appeared ready Tuesday to endorse the view that the Second Amendment gives individuals the right to own guns, but was less clear about whether to retain the District of Columbia's ban on handguns.
The justices were aware of the historic nature of their undertaking, engaging in an extended 98-minute session of questions and answers that could yield the first definition of the meaning of the Second Amendment in its 216 years
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080318/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_guns
It sounded to me like they were inclined to strike the DC ban and leave the door open to reasonable regulation....but not a ban.