ZOMG! I actually agree with the execrable MikeB. I should probably run over to church to make sure Jesus hasn’t jumped off the Cross.

You need to decide exactly what you are. If you’re a fellow who has a firearms hobby, then fine. If, on the other hand, you’re what you claim to be, a Second Amendment advocate, then you need to be that.

You are 100% entitled to any opinion you want to espouse, so please don’t think I’m trying to force you to agree with anything I might hold an opinion on. My problem is that you, at least according to the annual rankings, occupy a fairly prominent place in the gun blogging community, and when you keep posting stuff that you think is bad/wrong, it’s far too similar to Justice Scalia’s Heller decision wherein he laid out what sort of gun control laws SCOTUS would find to be within the framework of the Constitution.

Have you really done everything you’ve done on behalf of the RKBA only to get cited by some gun controller in support of their argument? Especially over some oddball issue such as this?

Do yourself a favor, stay out of PA in fall, you’d be in tears in short order given the number of hunters in this state.

That said, I think we’re gonna end up losing this one, and the Nanny Staters are gonna get this one. Not enough people realize this is a liberty issue, and there are too many hunters going, it ain’t huntin’, don’t care.

So since the majority of the US population opposes MikeB’s ‘common sense gun control’, he openly admits he is closed-minded.

Mike is arguing from emotion. Pointing out the facts about responsible, professional wildlife management (or of carry for that matter) won’t make a difference.

People who allow their emotions to triumph over reason, particulary when policy questions are at issue, can only have education offered to them, they can’t be forced to accept it.. Until they decide to think instead of feel all you can do is acknowledge their feelings and move on.

Written like someone who knows nothing about proper population control. The choice in many areas is shoot them (in which case the hunter gets meat and the state gets money) or hit them with motorvehicles. The latter is far less humane and far more expensive for everyone.

I say this, shooting animals with guns is wrong, period. Carrying guns, often where there is no danger and practically zero possibility that the gun will be used, is wrong.

Maybe the negative public perception should tell you something. Instead of disparaging those who object to these practices, an open-minded person would consider that they may have a point.