I read an article last night that claimed an argument, probably over ownership of a tree stand resulted in 5 men being killed, several more injured. All the details aren't revealed yet, but you can bet that hunters aren't going to come out of this looking good. One man was originally killed and then others who came to his assistance or simply to investigate were also killed. I feel that this one is really going to be nasty. I'm surprised this could happen in a state like Wisconsin. Maybe I shouldn't be. I guess it can happen anywhere. Best wishes.

Cal - Montreal

Yeah, I heard about it. Even made the news here over in Alabama. The real big thing they're stressing more is about a "semi auto" weapon.

It's a terrible shame...and a terrible thing to happen. Downright scary, to be honest.

I wonder about all the details. Was this guy really deranged enough to actually kill people over a huntin spot...(where I read he was tresspassing on private hunting land and it wasn't his stand), or deranged enough to kill because he got caught? Yeah, I reckon so. But, wonder why the people didn't return fire. (But, maybe they didn't have their arms, and maybe they were just scared enough not to think of anything but to "Get Out!" .)

I guess the details don't matter. What matters is that this luny shot and killed 5 people...and injured 3 more., determined to kill them as well. I hope he gets whats coming...hope the deceased's families can heal from the wounds this man gave them....


But...I am in agreement, this is gonna be some "bad publicity" for hunters everywhere. Just because of one screwball...............

but, that's what "they" feed on.

It's a terrible thing to happen. And, I cannot believe it happened. You just don't hear about this kinda thing...not anything near this bad...when it comes to "hunting". Sad.
But, I'm praying for the families, and the injured.

Truely sad for all of the victims and their families !!


99er

It made the papers out here in the anti gun state too.

From what I got from the article, a hunter was tresspassing, climbed into a stand, the owner of the property saw him and told him to leave. The guy in the stand started firing on the owner, the owner got on the radio and called for help and as they came to hep they were shot.

The guy who did the shooting, was not from the U.S. This bring into question if he understood the laws, or if he was just a crazy nut. I thin kthe guy was just crazy and should not have been allowed to own a gun. Did he buy, barrow or steal the gun?????

I know a good stand is something to fight for(atleast keep the poachers out) but this is a little(way over the top) much.

I feel for the familys that have been devistated by this.

The press is going to have a field day with this. Hunters are just a bunch of crazy nuts, semi-auto guns are bad, guns are bad, hunting is bad. It is not a black eye, we are going to be put in the barrel.

Dru.

Here's some more of it:
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/nation/2915144

here's the "statements" if you haven't seen them yet.

http://www.startribune.com/style/news/news...hooting1123.pdf

Gerald can you tell I have a jaded opinion of the press?? I get all of the anti storys and that is about it. Out here, you are a bad guy if you own a gun let alone go hunting. The anti's have been trying to ban fishing because it is cruel to the fish. That is how bad it is ot here.


Dru.

Dru:

The story is the same here. In New York City, you must register every rifle and shotgun. Failure to do so will result in confiscation of firearms and criminal charges, if discovered. It continues to amaze me that New York has been able to get away with this with not a peep out of the NRA. ( I freely admit that I am very sour on the NRA and have been for years. This isn't the time or place to say why but I just disagree with the way the NRA presents an image of guns, shooters and gun owners) Guns are for country people - for obvious reasons. The country is divided today between urban elites and country people. (Look at the electoral college map of the last two presidential elections) I spent my entire professional life working in urban centers. It was often amusing to have new friendly acquaintances exclaim in horror: " Youj go hunting?" or " Is that a gun?" (on visiting the house) I like to think that I made a lot of converts to at least the idea of being "neutral" about guns. That's the best you and I can hope for in our respective environments.

Well, Gerald, I'm sure you realized that you would get a responce to your comments on the NRA....... May I ask what, in particular, makes you "sour" on the NRA ? .... You say they have done nothing in New York... Well, you obviously have not bothered to check lately. They spend a slop bucket full of money in New York in a vain attempt to elect progun "lawmakers", seat less than liberal judges, further their "3-strikes" and Eddie Eagle programs, advance gun rights and education, ect... But don't expect to see any of this mentioned in the liberal media. ... But when New Yorkers continue to overwhelmingly elect people like Charles Schumer and Hillery Clinton, the NRA is smart enough to realize the bulk of it's rescouces are better spent elsewhere where they can have a more telling and positive effect....And what "image" does the NRA present of hunters, shooters and gun owners that you disagree with ? ... If it weren't for the NRA defending that pesky little "Constitutional problem" called the Second Ammendment, then the right to keep and bear arms would be pretty much relegated to the state of Briton..... Perhaps some people are satisfied with being "neutral" concerning guns. But any one that is even vaguely familier with the various "gun grabbers" and their ilk know that they will not settle for "neutral". I can see how that would cause less of a problem for someone liveing in NY. And even tho I would abide with the laws where ever I lived, I would still voice my beliefs, whatever they may be. That's the beauty of the First Ammendment...... I have been a member of the NRA for most of my adult life, and the good Lord willing, I will continue to be for a bit to come. ... Even tho I am not physically able to get out and hunt any longer, I still keep my membership up simply due to the fact that I realize what they do, for not just me, but furture generations, for my children, and their children.... Perhaps you disagree with the NRA. That is your prerogative. But for myself, I am a firm believer in the Second Ammendment, and I realize that the NRA is the stongest body today fighting in defence of this ammendment... And former president William Jefferson Clinton, agrees with me on the strength of the NRA....which is perhaps the only thing we agree on...except that I would not want to live with Hillery either..................................... Now Gerald, I am not trying to cause you any heartburn or start a problem, but as a gun owner and believer in the Second Ammendment, it is hard for me to understand how anyone who also believes in these things can possibly be opposed to the NRA, unless they have fallen for alot of the liberal hype in which the liberals try to demonize the NRA in an attempt to further their own agenda.

[quote=Mongojoe,Nov 29 2004, 02:58 PM]
Well, Gerald, I'm sure you realized that you would get a responce to your comments on the NRA....... May I ask what, in particular, makes you "sour" on the NRA ? ....

Mongo:

Let's agree to disagree. Whoever told you that the NRA spends money in NY is whistling Dixie. The NRA collects money and pays six figure salaries to the likes of Wayne LaPierre who looks on NY TV like someone from outer space. He looks like a fat slob, to put it politely - and I doubt that he ever swung a shotgun at anything outside a game preserve or aimed a rifle at anything outside a Texas game ranch.

You want to know why I despise the NRA? It's because the NRA opposed a ban on AP bullets - when we had drug dealers in NY shooting young cops and killing them -even though the cops were wearing so called bullet proof vests. That's reason # 1.

Reason No.2 is that the NRA had a "take no prisoners" approach to the subject of "assault rifles". Please don't insult my intelligence by presuming to lecture me about automatic weapons. What the NRA never did was to educate people on the subject of semi auto rifles that looked ugly -and so they were feared by people who know little about guns. By opposing legislation, the NRA gave the impression that gun owners are crackpots. Frankly, if I were ignorant of guns, I would have thought so, too. suppose the NRA had said: "We oppose any firearm capable of being fitted with a bayonet or a grenade launcher or can be fired from bipod or tripod or that has a magazine capable of more than ten shots (except 22 caliber) and in all events no more than 20 rounds". Where would any hunter or target shooter have suffered? Instead the NRA held out for "Our way or no way".

Reason No. 3 is the total failure of the NRA to make any appeal to the largest group of people in the US - those who have no fixed views about guns. They don't hunt but don't dislike people who do. (I grew up with neighbors who didn't hunt but freely gave me permission to hunt) The NRA spends all its time assuring its sucker members(yeah, that's what you are. How come you annual dues paying members don't get to vote for "directors" unless you're life members?{which I was, once, by the way} that it is defending them. How? In the most populous states in the Union (California and NY) the image of an NRA memberf is of being a "crazy". Tell me what the NRA has done in NY or California to change that image. You think watching a half senile actor like charlton Heston shaking his fist and screaming " From my cold dead hand" does it? Think again.

You asked for it. I found your post insulting.. I am dropping out of this forum. Your post shows me that the liberal press is right about one thing. You NRA types are crazies.

Ah hell Gerald.....everyone's entitled to an opinion about something they're passionate about. and obviously you two are passionate about the same thing...just from different sides of the fence. So now we can agree to disagree and move on. No biggie at all.


Crazies? Lol...nuts, perhaps......( @ Mongo), but those media people usually do always get it wrong.

Wayne LaPierre is a "fat slob" ?.... To be honest I have never paid that much attention, but since my accident and following inactivity, I have put on considerable weight myself. But personally, I don't hold a person's physical shape aginst them, and did not, even when I was thin........But, I'd like to know where you get your ideas concerning the NRA. You already stated as much as that you had no use for them, therefore you obviously pay little, or no attention to them and their dealings, so how would you even know what they do or don't do, unless you have been swallowing all that liberal hype that flows so freely, particularly along the coastal areas?....A ban on "AP bullets" ? Well I must confess to not knowing what those are..... And just how would you suggest that the NRA "educate" people in ways that they are not now doing?... It's kinda difficult to "get the word out" when the media is politically opposed to their views and will afford them little or no coverage, unless they do something the media can distort into a demonization of them. They "got the word out" as best they could thru a number of television and raidio programs, and most of the hunting/shooting magazines on the market. They even have a weekly radio program. You obviously do not watch or listen to any of these programs or read any of these magazines or you would know that they are trying to get their message out there... But then, what a person reads or watches it up to them, and if they choose to not know facts on a subject that runs counter to their already formed opinion, then they will avoid them........." suppose the NRA had said: "We oppose any firearm capable of being fitted with a bayonet or a grenade launcher or can be fired from bipod or tripod or that has a magazine capable of more than ten shots (except 22 caliber) and in all events no more than 20 rounds". Where would any hunter or target shooter have suffered? " ...Well, Gerald, it is not a matter of where any hunter or target shooter would suffer...It is a matter of realizeing that apeasement does not stifle a fanatic, it just emboldens them to push for more and more, knowing that if you gave in to them once, you probably would again. ... The NRA's "Our way or no way" stance was simply standing up for belifes, and not giveing in, because they realize that the liberals and anti-Second Ammendment crowd are not going to stop there, and the more you give in the stronger they become.... This was just another "nose under the tent", another probe for weakness where they could further their attack....It isn't like this was all they wanted, and would stop here, and I believe that you and I could both agree on that. ....... And the NRA makes no appeal to people who do not hunt?... Gerald, there is a section in every "American Rifleman" magazine listing places in your particular area where classes are being given for gun education, where police qualifications are being held, where shooting matches are held, where "Friends of NRA" are holding meetings, where "Educating women in firearms" classes are held, youth shooting programs, ect., all of which are open to the public... But the last I heard it was still illegal to force people to attend these things... If you have and better ideas on reaching people, then I am sure that any fireams organization would love to hear them.......... The reason the climate of the nation has cooled over the years concerning guns is due to the fact that the populace as a whole is becomeing more and more removed from the land, and in many ways, reality. Then too, all the TV shows and movies that ultimately depict guns in a bad light, with no "counter weight" to balance things, has a pronounced accumulative propoganda effect, which over time, will most definately shape opinions........ And Gerald, as to the case of voteing for "directors", you are somewhat mistaken. Being a life member is not a requirement... Every member who has been a member for 5 years or more receives a ballot to vote for directors, president, ect. I have been a member for alot of years, and never once paid dues for more than 2 years at a time(because I could not afford it), and I always vote...... Now you seem to have alot of opinions formed about something (the NRA) that you are not involved with, totally opposed to hearing about, and don't really wish to take the time to actually look into..... But, again, the way in which you choose to form your opinions is all up to you....... Charleton Heston is senile?...Perhaps. I am not privy to his life, so without facts, I will not state an opinion.... But speaking of "screaming", I do know that people like Chris Rock stateing/screaming that Charlton Heston should be shot in the head with a "Bulldog .44" does little to convince me of your argument. ........ So I am a "crazie", as well as a "sucker", not to mention a "fat slob"? Well, that's not too bad, I guess, compared to some things I have been called over the years.... But Gerald, let me tell you what I think you are.... I think you are a well meaning fellow, but that you have formed an opinion without fully looking into both sides of this matter........... Now if you choose to leave the forum, that is up to you. But, I really wish you would not. I find you an interesting individual, with view points that often cause me to think, and sometimes even reconsider my own beliefs.... But a forum, by virture of it's very nature, is a place for discourse, and free exchange of ideas. We can "agree to disagree", if that is what you wish. I will not call you names, nor will I insist that you have to believe the way I do. Free people may not always agree, but in this manner they can understand thought processes and opinions of others, which may or may not help them to form their own opinions. Without discourse this would not be possible.... Ultimately, the decision to leave is yours to make, but I do wish you would reconsider.

This may sound strange, but can any one here name the one orginasation that is suppose to fight for our rights?? They are suppose to fight all gov. attempts to curtail our rights under the constitution.

It is the ACLU!!!! Have you ever heard of them fighting for our second amenment right???? NO!!!!

They would rather sue a school district to keep Christmas out of the schools then take on a real issue. They sue on behalf of cross dressing teachers, yet won't lift a pen to help fight for the right to own a gun.

That is just one of the reasons I thinkl the ACLU should be banned.

Dru.

P.S. Where is the damn spell checker:)

Well, Buss, I admit that I am in total agreement with you... The ACLU started out with stellar intentions. But over time it has become hi-jacked by the liberal sector.... I had cause to have a small dealing with them about 6 or 8 years ago myself. ... Let's just say that this did nothing to enhance my respect for them.