Sounds interesting, however I'm slightly torn. I believe that a positive ruling for those pushing the allowance of optics could be a future benefit for gun owners since it could set a precedent for special needs folks being a reason to allow certain weapons. However, I also don't believe that this is an area that the feds should be messing with- What happens in these states does not involve an interstate issue, and states should be able to have some latitude on what goes on in their state based on the local circumstances (state's rights).
Civil Rights Case regarding BP optics
- Thread starter mp510
- Start date
- Status
Sounds interesting, however I'm slightly torn. I believe that a positive ruling for those pushing the allowance of optics could be a future benefit for gun owners since it could set a precedent for special needs folks being a reason to allow certain weapons. However, I also don't believe that this is an area that the feds should be messing with- What happens in these states does not involve an interstate issue, and states should be able to have some latitude on what goes on in their state based on the local circumstances (state's rights).
Actually, until I saw another posting on this board earlier in the week, I was unaware that you couldn't use scopes in some places(You can use them here). I'm one of the people they're talking about...With my vision problems, iron sights are pretty much useless (at least if I wann actually HIT anything). All my rifles wear scopes. I could see that they might limit the magnification, however.
RealGun
Member
I agree with the restriction, consistent with a tradition from a period when optics were not available. Think about it. If you need a scope, wait for the regular season. Being able to drop game from distances uncommon in the days of muzzle loaders is not in the reenactment spirit of the special season.
No one said a person couldn't wear corrective lenses. Shooting a handgun presents the same sight and target focus conflict. If you can't see, you can't shoot, or probably shouldn't.
No one said a person couldn't wear corrective lenses. Shooting a handgun presents the same sight and target focus conflict. If you can't see, you can't shoot, or probably shouldn't.
Double Naught Spy
Sus Venator
Right, or otherwise next time BP folks will be suing for the using of metal cartridges, bowhunters will want to be able to use guns during bow season, and shotgunners will want to use rifles during shotgun season.
If they want to use optics, then they can shoot during regular rifle season.
Is it not eought they get their own special season?
If they want to use optics, then they can shoot during regular rifle season.
Is it not eought they get their own special season?
"They?"
You know, you, too can get a muzzleloader.
Personally, I think that optics should be allowed, but only "period" optics. They are available.
Sidelocks only, though, or a replica of an original design. And BP/substitute only.
Now that Savage makes a muzzleloading smokeless-powder bolt action, there has to be some limit placed on the meaning of "muzzleloader", or there's no justification for a special season. Apart from not allowing a quick followup shot -- seldom an issue at 400 yards anyway -- where's the "handicap" posed by such a rifle?
California doesn't allow optics. And I know some old codgers who manage fine, despite thick glasses. One of them is 80 -- maybe he's 79, depending on when his birthday is. He like peep sights on his big buffalo gun; he opts not to use optics sometimes, even when he can. Nice guy, and very well educated, too. Made his kids read the Constitution, Federalist Papers, etc. when they were young.
They're still obnoxious libertarian types to this day.
You know, you, too can get a muzzleloader.
Personally, I think that optics should be allowed, but only "period" optics. They are available.
Sidelocks only, though, or a replica of an original design. And BP/substitute only.
Now that Savage makes a muzzleloading smokeless-powder bolt action, there has to be some limit placed on the meaning of "muzzleloader", or there's no justification for a special season. Apart from not allowing a quick followup shot -- seldom an issue at 400 yards anyway -- where's the "handicap" posed by such a rifle?
California doesn't allow optics. And I know some old codgers who manage fine, despite thick glasses. One of them is 80 -- maybe he's 79, depending on when his birthday is. He like peep sights on his big buffalo gun; he opts not to use optics sometimes, even when he can. Nice guy, and very well educated, too. Made his kids read the Constitution, Federalist Papers, etc. when they were young.
They're still obnoxious libertarian types to this day.deadin
Member
E
These may be the same people that move in next to an airport and then bitch about the noise.
I agree that the "special" seasons have gotten too far away from what was originally intended . (In-line, plastic "muzzleloaders", rifled shotguns, etc. How about crossbows?)
Dean
These may be the same people that move in next to an airport and then bitch about the noise.
I agree that the "special" seasons have gotten too far away from what was originally intended . (In-line, plastic "muzzleloaders", rifled shotguns, etc. How about crossbows?)
Dean
Preacherman
Member
I demand the right to put a GPS target location system and periscope ranging optics - on my trebuchet!
This makes me think... The rules probably ought to be revamped.
BP or substitute propellant with specified characteristics, not modern rifle powder.
Breechloading Sharps rifles and replicas of similar period single-shot firearms, provided they use the propellant above and rounds are loaded without cases, should be allowed. Is a ramrod really the most important factor, here?
Modern in-lines shouldn't be -- too much money being made there, though, so that's a pipe dream. Still, the point of special seasons was to allow the historic sidelock rifles to have a fair shot at bagging a deer, not to give extra tags to modern deer hunters with a bigger gun budget and no interest in period firearms. AFAIK, there are states where a sidelock IS required for the special season.
Period optics are fine, I think, with the above restrictions in place. Iron sights aren't the limiting factor for anything but a modern in-line.
BP or substitute propellant with specified characteristics, not modern rifle powder.
Breechloading Sharps rifles and replicas of similar period single-shot firearms, provided they use the propellant above and rounds are loaded without cases, should be allowed. Is a ramrod really the most important factor, here?
Modern in-lines shouldn't be -- too much money being made there, though, so that's a pipe dream. Still, the point of special seasons was to allow the historic sidelock rifles to have a fair shot at bagging a deer, not to give extra tags to modern deer hunters with a bigger gun budget and no interest in period firearms. AFAIK, there are states where a sidelock IS required for the special season.
Period optics are fine, I think, with the above restrictions in place. Iron sights aren't the limiting factor for anything but a modern in-line.
Disagree with the purists.
To me, the goals and priorities of hunting policies should be (these top four in no particular order):
1) safety for hunters and bystanders
2) promoting more people to hunt
3) promoting successful hunting (including effective humane kills)
4) promoting healthy game populations
Preserving romantic notions of re-enactment purity would be way, way down on my list of priorities for hunting policies. Like, # 1,229 maybe.
In my state, deer are massively overpopulated. Anything we can do to get more people hunting, more effectively, more successfully, more often, is a good thing.
The safety lords have determined that in the conditions of my state, centerfire rifles present an unacceptable safety hazard for deer hunting - so we are down to bows, shotguns, handguns, and muzzle loaders. Most deer hunting here is in the woods, poor lighting, and you can't see at all much beyond 100-150 yards. Under such conditions, scopes improve accuracy and potentially safety.
With the current hunting regulations we have, we are already having deer overpopulation problems and the net number of hunters in the state keeps dropping as more older guys die off and more kids play video games instead. The last thing we need is more restrictive policies that could take some hunters out of the hunt or reduce how much they hunt, or reduce the success of their hunts.
If a scope winds up making the difference between somebody hunting or not, hitting what they shoot at or not, getting a deer or not, then I say it's a good thing. Good for the health of the game population, and good for hunting/hunters in general.
The old guy with failing eyesight using a scope on his muzzle loader is probably me. How exactly am I hurting you? If you want to reproduce 17th century conditions, you're perfectly free to go hunting with your matchlock. Forego modern sanitation practices, while you're at it, so you can experience the challenge of hunting with dysentery. I hear the tremors from fever and electrolyte imbalances make it extra challenging to get a steady sight picture. You're free to impose whatever restrictions or handicaps on your hunting that you want - just don't impose them on me.
To me, the goals and priorities of hunting policies should be (these top four in no particular order):
1) safety for hunters and bystanders
2) promoting more people to hunt
3) promoting successful hunting (including effective humane kills)
4) promoting healthy game populations
Preserving romantic notions of re-enactment purity would be way, way down on my list of priorities for hunting policies. Like, # 1,229 maybe.
In my state, deer are massively overpopulated. Anything we can do to get more people hunting, more effectively, more successfully, more often, is a good thing.
The safety lords have determined that in the conditions of my state, centerfire rifles present an unacceptable safety hazard for deer hunting - so we are down to bows, shotguns, handguns, and muzzle loaders. Most deer hunting here is in the woods, poor lighting, and you can't see at all much beyond 100-150 yards. Under such conditions, scopes improve accuracy and potentially safety.
With the current hunting regulations we have, we are already having deer overpopulation problems and the net number of hunters in the state keeps dropping as more older guys die off and more kids play video games instead. The last thing we need is more restrictive policies that could take some hunters out of the hunt or reduce how much they hunt, or reduce the success of their hunts.
If a scope winds up making the difference between somebody hunting or not, hitting what they shoot at or not, getting a deer or not, then I say it's a good thing. Good for the health of the game population, and good for hunting/hunters in general.
The old guy with failing eyesight using a scope on his muzzle loader is probably me. How exactly am I hurting you? If you want to reproduce 17th century conditions, you're perfectly free to go hunting with your matchlock. Forego modern sanitation practices, while you're at it, so you can experience the challenge of hunting with dysentery. I hear the tremors from fever and electrolyte imbalances make it extra challenging to get a steady sight picture. You're free to impose whatever restrictions or handicaps on your hunting that you want - just don't impose them on me.
Last edited:
rock jock
Member
Muzzleloader season IMO is a joke anyway. Modern muzzleloaders are essentially equivalent to centerfire rifles out to 150-200 yds. Top them with a scope and you have talking about a technical difference.
thumper723
Member
I try to hunt in the "spirit" of the rules. When I lived in shotgun only states, I used Buck and Foster slugs only.
My BP rifle that I am looking at will be iron sights. I will probably use modern sabots for terminal ballistics. Not for range, but for a clean kill.
My BP rifle that I am looking at will be iron sights. I will probably use modern sabots for terminal ballistics. Not for range, but for a clean kill.
Enjoy the simplicity of it!
I think if a modern in line, new fangled powder, (notice I left out BP because they seldom use the real stuff) wants to use modern optics and all this technology then they should shoot with the other modern weapons during regular gun season.
If you want to hunt primitive style then iron sights, Black Powder, front stuffer, either flint or percussion only. The primitive season is there for the thrill of hunting as our ancestors did. Enjoy the simplicity of it!
I think if a modern in line, new fangled powder, (notice I left out BP because they seldom use the real stuff) wants to use modern optics and all this technology then they should shoot with the other modern weapons during regular gun season.
If you want to hunt primitive style then iron sights, Black Powder, front stuffer, either flint or percussion only. The primitive season is there for the thrill of hunting as our ancestors did. Enjoy the simplicity of it!
-------quote---------
If you want to hunt primitive style then iron sights, Black Powder, front stuffer, either flint or percussion only. The primitive season is there for the thrill of hunting as our ancestors did. Enjoy the simplicity of it!
---------------------
You are free to promote this philosophy, but you haven't really made an argument that it should be imposed by law on everyone else.
This "more primitive than thou" contest be rewarding for you, but why force everyone else to play your game?
Again, in my state deer overpopulation and hunter underpopulation are serious problems. Hunters are an endangered species, and I don't think we can afford to drive potential hunters off. In my state, the shotgun/handgun season is only a couple of weeks long. Adopting a loose definition of muzzle loader allows more hunters to hunt more. What's so wrong with that?
If you want to hunt primitive style then iron sights, Black Powder, front stuffer, either flint or percussion only. The primitive season is there for the thrill of hunting as our ancestors did. Enjoy the simplicity of it!
---------------------
You are free to promote this philosophy, but you haven't really made an argument that it should be imposed by law on everyone else.
This "more primitive than thou" contest be rewarding for you, but why force everyone else to play your game?
Again, in my state deer overpopulation and hunter underpopulation are serious problems. Hunters are an endangered species, and I don't think we can afford to drive potential hunters off. In my state, the shotgun/handgun season is only a couple of weeks long. Adopting a loose definition of muzzle loader allows more hunters to hunt more. What's so wrong with that?
JohnBT
Member
"The primitive season is there for the thrill of hunting as our ancestors did."
Are you sure you want to go there?
Okay, you can hunt small game, birds, bears and varmints. Do you really want to give up hunting deer? If you want to hunt like my ancestors you'll have to.
I don't believe there were enough Virginia whitetails to matter, or hunt, until the '60s or '70 or so. Well, maybe in the 1600s, but who wants to hunt with some old blunderbuss, right?
There must have been a deer somewhere, but we never saw them and there was no tradition of deer hunting in the family or the area. My dad's family grew apples in the mountains for over 100 years and they never saw a deer until about 1970. I have to figure that if there was a deer in that part of the Blue Ridge then their 1500 apple trees would have brought it out of hiding. The bears and the few turkeys liked the apples, but nary a deer for generations.
I can almost pinpoint the year they began to show up near the orchard - very late '60s. My uncle bought a .30-06 BAR for his first deer rifle. It wasn't introduced until 1967. (Note to self: call again and see if he's ready to sell.)
Another uncle used to bear hunt in Augusta and Highland Counties and that general area and I don't recall him ever seeing a deer. He did kill the largest bear west of the Blue Ridge during the '63 season, so he spent a lot of time in the woods. Then when they did start showing he wouldn't shoot them - too easy he said. And his daddy and grandfather didn't have deer on their farms in Nelson County.
Primitive hunting. No trucks, no GoreTex, no hearing protection, no hand warmers, no electric socks and no store bought beef jerky. No deer.
I have a picture here somewhere of my great-uncle Andy posing with the bear and 2 cubs he shot. They didn't like bears of any size. If you look closely there's an adult under the big bear skin and younsters holding up the other two. He was born in the 1880s, so the picture must have been taken in Greenville before WWI. In any case, he didn't deer hunt either for all the above reasons. No deer.
I don't think any of them ever used binocs either.
John
Are you sure you want to go there?
Okay, you can hunt small game, birds, bears and varmints. Do you really want to give up hunting deer?
If you want to hunt like my ancestors you'll have to.I don't believe there were enough Virginia whitetails to matter, or hunt, until the '60s or '70 or so. Well, maybe in the 1600s, but who wants to hunt with some old blunderbuss, right?
There must have been a deer somewhere, but we never saw them and there was no tradition of deer hunting in the family or the area. My dad's family grew apples in the mountains for over 100 years and they never saw a deer until about 1970. I have to figure that if there was a deer in that part of the Blue Ridge then their 1500 apple trees would have brought it out of hiding. The bears and the few turkeys liked the apples, but nary a deer for generations.
I can almost pinpoint the year they began to show up near the orchard - very late '60s. My uncle bought a .30-06 BAR for his first deer rifle. It wasn't introduced until 1967. (Note to self: call again and see if he's ready to sell.)
Another uncle used to bear hunt in Augusta and Highland Counties and that general area and I don't recall him ever seeing a deer. He did kill the largest bear west of the Blue Ridge during the '63 season, so he spent a lot of time in the woods. Then when they did start showing he wouldn't shoot them - too easy he said. And his daddy and grandfather didn't have deer on their farms in Nelson County.
Primitive hunting. No trucks, no GoreTex, no hearing protection, no hand warmers, no electric socks and no store bought beef jerky. No deer.
I have a picture here somewhere of my great-uncle Andy posing with the bear and 2 cubs he shot. They didn't like bears of any size. If you look closely there's an adult under the big bear skin and younsters holding up the other two. He was born in the 1880s, so the picture must have been taken in Greenville before WWI. In any case, he didn't deer hunt either for all the above reasons. No deer.
I don't think any of them ever used binocs either.
John
Antsi,
"You are free to promote this philosophy, but you haven't really made an argument that it should be imposed by law on everyone else."
My two cents wasn't really intended to be for or again the legality of the issue. I just like to hunt with my smoke pole. I don't agree with this lawsuit. I don't think its a civil rights thing at all. I don't believe that whomever this outfit is that is instigating the suit should have at all. I think the state should be able to set its own definition of what is allowed in BP season. Why don't these shooters bring out thier inlines during rifle season? They'd be at a disadvantage thats why. So why should they get an advantage over my coal burner in the primative season?
I like to use BP not prodex or any of the other stuff, but I don't go out in buckskin either. All i say is these guns have thier place and day but not during the muzzleloader season. I'm not trying to rain on anyones parade but I don't want mine rained on either.
"You are free to promote this philosophy, but you haven't really made an argument that it should be imposed by law on everyone else."
My two cents wasn't really intended to be for or again the legality of the issue. I just like to hunt with my smoke pole. I don't agree with this lawsuit. I don't think its a civil rights thing at all. I don't believe that whomever this outfit is that is instigating the suit should have at all. I think the state should be able to set its own definition of what is allowed in BP season. Why don't these shooters bring out thier inlines during rifle season? They'd be at a disadvantage thats why. So why should they get an advantage over my coal burner in the primative season?
I like to use BP not prodex or any of the other stuff, but I don't go out in buckskin either. All i say is these guns have thier place and day but not during the muzzleloader season. I'm not trying to rain on anyones parade but I don't want mine rained on either.
nico
Member
I have to agree with Antsi and JohnBT. If not for a couple minor details, antsi could be describing MD. I have nothing against people hunting with historic/replica guns (and I'd like to try it myself some day), but I don't see how my hunting on private property with an inline muzzle loader has any effect on someone who wants to use a flintlock. Personally, my main reason for owning a muzzle loader at this point in my life (taking ~30 credits/semester in dental school) is to allow me to better fit hunting into my schedule. With the way the firearms season is here, I don't have more than a day or two to spend hunting. Muzzle loader season will give me another couple days.
That being said, I think this lawsuit is more than a little silly. For the most part, a state DNR should be able to set their own hunting regulations without the feds interfering.
That being said, I think this lawsuit is more than a little silly. For the most part, a state DNR should be able to set their own hunting regulations without the feds interfering.
Desertdog
Member
Careful of what you ask for.
They may decide that in order not to discriminate, they will make hunters use open sights only. Guess what? That ends the discrimnation.
They may decide that in order not to discriminate, they will make hunters use open sights only. Guess what? That ends the discrimnation.
RealGun
Member
I did a little basic research on that, finding that white tail deer were nearly extinct in the NE and mid west, while now the most plentiful game animal. The reason for their decline was hunting with muzzle loaders without scopes. The deer was a major source of food, perhaps even income, bagging more than one needed personally. Deer also had more natural predators than they do now, big cats, wolves and such. It was hunting management that brought the deer population back and which will keep it under control.
My reading also reminded me that these deer are nocturnal, so if you see one in full daylight, it has been flushed, is nervous, and is not going to stand around waiting for you to take a long, technical shot.
TallPine
Member
to me it makes a difference if there is a special season for muzzleloaders (like out here in the west) versus muzzleloaders being allowed along with modern shtoguns during the normal season in more crowded eastern states
if a state is going to have a special muzzleloading season, then they dang well have the right to specify exactly what qualifies as a muzzleloader - otherwise, one could argue that they should be able to use a 30-06 during archery season because they are "disabled"
btw, i don't understand why pistol caliber rifles are not allowed for deer hunting in eastern states, as the ballistics would roughly approximate that of a traditional muzzleloader
if a state is going to have a special muzzleloading season, then they dang well have the right to specify exactly what qualifies as a muzzleloader - otherwise, one could argue that they should be able to use a 30-06 during archery season because they are "disabled"
btw, i don't understand why pistol caliber rifles are not allowed for deer hunting in eastern states, as the ballistics would roughly approximate that of a traditional muzzleloader
That's a special case. Sounds like there's no reason for a special muzzleloading season, and there shouldn't be, in your state. It should be open season, for whatever guns you want. If there is a demonstrable need for a separate archery season, fine, but otherwise, it doesn't sound like there's a reason for any restriction. Furthermore, it sounds like a period muzzleloader wouldn't even be a handicap, nor a modern muzzleloader an advantage, anyway.
In reality, a .30-06 might be safer in the woods than a modern slug gun, BTW. Spitzer bullets are deflected or broken up by obstacles a lot more easily than a big hunk of lead.
Now, note that my state is named in the lawsuit as a "civil rights" offender. The ML seasons here are considered "extra" tags or "special" seasons. We have woods hunting, but we also have a lot of long range shooting. We have several large cities, and more hunters than you'd ever imagine. Deer tag success rates are in the single digits for many regions. So, muzzleloaders and centerfire rifle shooters DO conflict, at least in certain regions with long-range shots and sparse deer populations.
So, here the objective is not to get as many hunters out there as possible, killing as many deer as possible. Modern muzzleloaders almost meant the END of muzzleloading season in the PNW, AFAIK. Hunters up there voted to limit the special season to iron sights and sidelocks.
My point is that your state should manage game as it sees fit, but also that states where there are legitimate reasons for special muzzleloading seasons that allow hunters to go afield but limit the number of deer harvested so more hunters can enjoy ourselves, ought to consider what a "muzzleloader" really is. Some already have.
Either way, it's not a civil rights issue, and I hope this case is decided in favor of F&G, not some whiners. In states like mine, this could mean that, as someone said, all hunters must use irons, or that they just throw up their hands and cancel the muzzleloading seasons and/or tags altogether.
I believe a hunter from West Covina (and a match) caused more problems in San Diego County than the remainder of hunters combined. He showed that the quaility not the quantity is the bigger problem. A doofus in the woods no matter how armed is still a doofus. An argument about how he's armed merely detracts from the larger issue.
STW, that's not the point I was making, at all. This post wasn't about that idiot, or about safety. California's muzzleloading seasons or tags are not about safety, they're about managing a limited deer population in a state with a high population that has varied interests when it comes to hunting (archery, blackpowder, centerfire are just the beginning of the variety, of course).
If you're Fish and Game, and you have 1,000 hunters who want tags for a region, and you want a harvest of 100 deer, then you can just sell tags freely, if you figure a 10% success rate. Everyone gets to hunt.
If that success rate is lower because you have real equipment limitations, say in an area where 300 yard shots are common, but you have a special season for muzzleloaders, then 300 yard deer guns with scopes (e.g. Savage's smokeless muzzleloader) change the equasion a lot. Now far fewer tags can be issued. So yes, someone with a "muzzleloader" that is as effective as a modern .308 DOES have a negative impact on blackpowder hunters.
Muzzleloading season here has nothing to do with safety. Again, they're extra seasons. We have only one tiny spot in the entire state that requires shotguns, and that's adjacent to Los Angeles. For all intents and purposes, California allows centerfire rifles everywhere during regular deer season and always has. Roy Weatherby hunted here.
Muzzleloading season here has everything to do with sport, challenge, and the opportunity for black powder shooters to have a crack at a few deer they ordinarily wouldn't have a snowflake's chance in hell of hunting. Very few deer are shot in my F&G district with muzzleloaders during our special season. VERY few, like 5 a year, and the tags are STILL subject to a lottery system!
Like I said, if the gun limitations are for safety (misguided bureaucratic BS, but not my business), if a state has more deer than you can shake a stick at, if the objective is to harvest as many as possible, then they should allow any sights, etc. But if the point of a special tag or season is in the interest of providing the best sporting experience for the most residents, with only a limited number of deer, then I think that a ML season ought to really be for real muzzleloaders, as intended when they set up the seasons/tags to begin with.
Separate archery and muzzleloading seasons were not created here to get more people out hunting, or to make hunting safer, but rather to give various kinds of hunters a better crack at getting one of our limited number of deer.
If you're Fish and Game, and you have 1,000 hunters who want tags for a region, and you want a harvest of 100 deer, then you can just sell tags freely, if you figure a 10% success rate. Everyone gets to hunt.
If that success rate is lower because you have real equipment limitations, say in an area where 300 yard shots are common, but you have a special season for muzzleloaders, then 300 yard deer guns with scopes (e.g. Savage's smokeless muzzleloader) change the equasion a lot. Now far fewer tags can be issued. So yes, someone with a "muzzleloader" that is as effective as a modern .308 DOES have a negative impact on blackpowder hunters.
Muzzleloading season here has nothing to do with safety. Again, they're extra seasons. We have only one tiny spot in the entire state that requires shotguns, and that's adjacent to Los Angeles. For all intents and purposes, California allows centerfire rifles everywhere during regular deer season and always has. Roy Weatherby hunted here.
Muzzleloading season here has everything to do with sport, challenge, and the opportunity for black powder shooters to have a crack at a few deer they ordinarily wouldn't have a snowflake's chance in hell of hunting. Very few deer are shot in my F&G district with muzzleloaders during our special season. VERY few, like 5 a year, and the tags are STILL subject to a lottery system!
Like I said, if the gun limitations are for safety (misguided bureaucratic BS, but not my business), if a state has more deer than you can shake a stick at, if the objective is to harvest as many as possible, then they should allow any sights, etc. But if the point of a special tag or season is in the interest of providing the best sporting experience for the most residents, with only a limited number of deer, then I think that a ML season ought to really be for real muzzleloaders, as intended when they set up the seasons/tags to begin with.
Separate archery and muzzleloading seasons were not created here to get more people out hunting, or to make hunting safer, but rather to give various kinds of hunters a better crack at getting one of our limited number of deer.
Last edited:
arcticap
Member
Is their any doubt where PETA stands on this issue?
I guess the old saying "Politics makes strange bed fellows" would apply considering who's preferring to be on their side of the fence.
I guess the old saying "Politics makes strange bed fellows" would apply considering who's preferring to be on their side of the fence.
Mannlicher
Member
now thats a crock. Bunch of darn baby boomers still crying, whining, and wanting special treatment. I suppose there will be more and more of that garbage though, as those bozos 'mature'.
What a bunch of self centered babies.
oh yeah, I am 60 myself, but I darn sure don't want to be thrown in with those clowns.
What a bunch of self centered babies.
oh yeah, I am 60 myself, but I darn sure don't want to be thrown in with those clowns.
Lupinus
Member
is it just me or is making the argument you can't see worth a damn so you need sights on your gun not the best sounding argument in the world? 
- Status
