DesertBull

Early season, water and trail sitting. Late season, spot and stalk.

I don't want to kill them all, but I do want to get one of them.

http://www.weatherby.com/products/guns.asp...code=AMM300WL6O

I have a lefty Weather Warrior. It's nothing fancy but it is accurate. Browning / Winchester don't make a LH WSSM? Maybe you can get a .257 Weatherby in LH? A regular ol' .270 or 7mag will kill a deer at 500 yards and ammo is much easier to find anc cheaper.

Yep, made in America. Good luck with the rodent.

Put a handful of sunflower seeds on top of your radiator cap, then wait till you see him peek over the top of your radiator, when he does, blast him a full choke, 00 buck, 12 ga. BOTH BARRELS! No more packrat. Your truck won't run anymore, but since it's a Ford, you won't be able to tell the difference.

A Ruger Blackhawk in .357 is about as good as it gets.

Sweet. Looks like you were in some low "coues" country.

Bad news. The Supremes have a history of making up things that are not even close to being in the Constitution.

“The right of the people to keep and bear arms” By Mark Alexander There is yet another ideological contest brewing in our nation’s capitol, this one between two distinctively different groups in the federal judiciary: constitutional constructionists, who render decisions based on the “original intent” of our nation’s founding document, and judicial despots, who endorse the dangerously errant notion of a “Living Constitution.” This is no trivial contest, however, and the outcome will have significant consequences across the nation. The subject of this dispute is Washington, DC’s “Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975,” which prohibits residents from owning handguns, ostensibly to deter so-called “gun violence.” Of course, suggesting that violence is a “gun problem” ignores the real problem—that of socio-pathology and the culture which nurtures it. (See the Congressional Testimony of Darrell Scott, father of Rachel Scott, one of the children murdered at Columbine High School in 1999.) In 1960 the frequency of violent crime in the District was 554/100,000 residents, and the murder rate was 10/100,000. In 2006, the frequency of violent crime in the District was 1,512/100,000 residents, and the murder rate was 29/100,000. That is a 200 percent increase, and according to the latest data from Washington Metro Police, violent crime is up 12 percent thus far this year. Fact is, firearm restrictions on law-abiding citizens in Washington, and other urban centers, have created more victims while protecting offenders. There is nothing new about this correlation. As Thomas Jefferson noted in his Commonplace Book (quoting Cesare Beccaria), “Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” Simply put, violent predators prefer victims who have no means of self defense. Most pro and con arguments about firearms are constructed around the crime debate, including excellent research by John Lott, whose book More Guns, Less Crime, clearly establishes that restrictive gun policies lead to higher crime rates. The arguments from both sides in the current case in Washington are also constructed around the crime issue. However, the Second Amendment debate is not about crime, but about the rule of law—constitutional law. Fortunately, the appellate court for DC is making this distinction. In March of this year, the U.S. District Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia struck down that federal jurisdiction’s restrictions on gun ownership, finding that the District is violating the Second Amendment’s prohibition on government infringement of “the right of the people to keep and bear arms.” The case has been appealed to the Supreme Court, and should the High Court accept the case, its ruling would be the first substantial decision on the scope of the Second Amendment since 1939. At issue: Does the Second Amendment prohibit the government from infringing on the individual rights of citizens to keep and bear arms, or does it restrict the central government from infringing on the rights of the several states to maintain well-armed militias? The intent of the Second Amendment, however, was abundantly clear to our Founders. Indeed, in the most authoritative explication of our Constitution, The Federalist Papers, its principal author, James Madison, wrote in No. 46, “The advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation... forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any...” Alexander Hamilton was equally unambiguous on the importance of arms to a republic, writing in Federalist No. 28, “If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense...” Justice Joseph Story, appointed to the Supreme Court by James Madison, wrote, “The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.” In other words, the right of the people to bear arms is the most essential of the rights enumerated in our Constitution, because it ensures the preservation of all other rights. Accordingly, the appellate court, in a 2-1 decision, ruled, “The Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. That right existed prior to the formation of the new government under the Constitution and was premised on the private use of arms for activities such as hunting and self-defense, the latter being understood as resistance to either private lawlessness or the depredations of a tyrannical government... The individual right facilitated militia service by ensuring that citizens would not be barred from keeping the arms they would need when called forth for militia duty.” Additionally, the majority opinion notes, “The activities [the amendment] protects are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual’s enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued or intermittent enrollment in the militia.” The dissenting judge’s conclusion did not dispute the plain language of the Second Amendment’s prohibition on government, but he insists that the District is not a state, and is, thus, not subject to the prohibition. This is ridiculous, of course, since such a conclusion would imply, by extension, that District residents are not subject to any protection under the Constitution. The real contest here is one between activist judges, those who amend the Constitution by judicial diktat rather than its clearly prescribed method stipulated in Article V, and constructionist judges, those who properly render legal interpretation based on the Constitution’s “original intent.” As Hamilton wrote in Federalist No. 81, “[T]here is not a syllable in the [Constitution] under consideration which directly empowers the national courts to construe the laws according to the spirit of the Constitution...” In other words, nothing in the Constitution gives judges the right to declare the Constitution means anything beyond the scope of its plain language. However, activist judges, including those among generations of High Court justices, have historically construed the Second Amendment through a pinhole, while viewing the First Amendment through a wide-angle lens. For example, though the First Amendment plainly says, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” judicial activists interpret this plain language to mean a public school coach can’t offer a simple prayer before a game. Equally absurd, they argue that the First Amendment’s “freedom of speech” clause means burning the American flag, exploiting women for “adult entertainment,” or using taxpayer dollars to fund works of “art” such as a crucifix immersed in a glass of human waste. If these same judicial despots misconstrued the Second Amendment as broadly as they do the first, Americans would have nukes to defend themselves from noisy neighbors. The appeals case regarding the constitutionality of DC’s Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 is not about crime prevention, or whether the District is subject to prohibitions in the Bill of Rights. It is about the essence of our Constitution’s most important assurance that all Americans have the right to defend themselves against both predatory criminals and tyrannical governments. It is about the need for the High Court to reaffirm this right and stop the incremental encroachment of said right by infringements like that in the District, or more egregious encroachments like those found within the Feinstein-Schumer gun-control act. Of self-government’s “important principles,” Thomas Jefferson wrote, “It is [the peoples’] right and duty to be at all times armed.” Indeed, the right of the people to keep and bear arms should not be infringed.

Water will be a good evening tactic if we continue this gawd awful drought.

AWESOME! Great buck and story!

There is nothing better than a great tamale and there is nothing worse than a bad one. You know, the ones that are 1/2 lb of masa and 1 oz of meat. Those will plug up a horse.

Sitka Blacktail meat is the best venison I have ever eaten, by far.

SA-WEEET!

How? If they are not obeying the current laws, what makes us believe they obey new ones?

I would never know if it was the record because a tape measure would never touch it.

The argument is, if lead bullets are killing the Condors then why aren't they also killing the other scavengers? We should be having a die off of all scavengers that reside in heavily hunted areas, including coyotes, but know one has claimed it to be....YET. I don't think the lead bullets are selectively killing the condors and not the others. Next up, they will be telling us that wolves have died after eating gut piles and the no lead ban spread to the Apache Sitgreaves and Gila. Then it will be that black bears are dieing off from eating bullets...etc....etc....etc. There is an agenda here they are using the Condors as their "poster-bird". I have little doubt about the Commision will be caving to them though. They are already going to change the laws regarding salt/mineral licks, and no one is even complaining about it.

I heard it was from Iowa.

Has anyone ever reserved a blind at Cibola or Havasu for waterfowl hunting? Do you need a boat or can you hunt it with just waders?

If it were about conserving and preserving, they would just enforce the laws already on the books regarding off road driving, littering, etc, but it's not really about that. It is about keeping you and I off of their land. The Springerville district is getting hit first and hardest because of one thing...the wolf. Just like there are underlying political reasons for Congressman Grivalda's (sp?) proposal for a new wilderness area along the border. It's not about preserving the area, it's about keeping the border patrol out and preventing a wall/fence from being erected.

Yeah, that's what they want us to do...bend over and take in the shorts...without a fight. Just like the global whining...errr I mean global warming fruitcakes.

After they close the roads, they will claim that it is now wonderful new Wolf/Griz/Condor/ferret/minnow habitat and then we will be further restricted in our activities.

Love is the universal language. OINK!