"Ed Huntress" wrote in message ...

Sorry for tacking this here, Ed, but to make my position clear:

I am not against anyone owning any particular weapon, and I am not
against them taking it to a target range and shooting all they want to
in controlled conditions. It's their money, if they want to shoot it
away, that's their thing.

I am against taking those same weapons into the woods, in uncontrolled
conditions, and almost always not knowing if they are endangering
others by doing so.

Hunting areas in the midwest are shrinking, housing is being built,
other lands are being closed by the landowners, and with very good
reason. The day when a hunter was a gentleman has long been dead and
buried, and will probably never return. It is not uncommon to hear of
people being robbed of their game at gunpoint, it happens often. It
is also common to have hunters told to leave the land they are legally
hunting on, by someone from another atate, that does not have
permission, but he has his weapon. Yes, this is illegal, but it still
happens. Finding out of state hunters, in packs, on land posted by
someone else is common, and is of some concern to the law enforcement
people.

People **** and moan that the wardens are pricks, but almost every
violation they come on, the violator is armed to the teeth. Now, you
have a man that has already broken a law, the warden MUST take the
position that murder would not be beyond the violator. There are too
many dead wardens to testify to the folly of assuming otherwise.

If someone wants to hunt, I have no objection, used to do that myself.
If they want to loudly proclaim their right to have whatever pos
weapon, I also have the right to demand that they use it responsibly
and safely. Chai Vang is one example of the "right" without the
responsibility. You don't have thousands of people going into the
woods, now you have millions. More precautions have to be taken as
the risk is now thousands of times higher.