Celt
.338 Win Mag
LOL, for public safety... bla bla bla... "no one needs 10 bullets to kill a deeeeeaaar" you dont need an ar15 to hunt, so lets ban them for public safety.
hunter orange.
- Thread starter Robin
- Start date
Saltwater60
.950 JDJ
My father and I were shot at years ago even while wearing orange. I stopped hunting for years after it. Not the only reason I stopped but sure had a hand in my decision. I’m back at it and I wear orange because I want to.
Pink? WTF is that all about so the gays can go and hunt?
Pink? WTF is that all about so the gays can go and hunt?
Not the same thing. Also nobody is forced unless people are being held down and suited up in orange and I just missed it. If you don’t want to them don’t. You will not lose your liberty over it.
Hey guys, let's all take a moment to reflect a think I thing some on here are missing as of late. I'm gonna try and state this as simple as possible. Thanks for a moment of your time:
EVEN IF THE THING IS A GOOD IDEA HAVING THE GOVERNMENT MANDATE IT IS A TERRIBLE ONE!
IT'S A SIMPLE FUCKING CONCEPT!
Thank you.
EVEN IF THE THING IS A GOOD IDEA HAVING THE GOVERNMENT MANDATE IT IS A TERRIBLE ONE!
IT'S A SIMPLE FUCKING CONCEPT!
Thank you.
Everything around here has to turn into chicken little the sky is falling nonsense from a select few. It’s old and tired and worn out.
“I’m not going to wear a welders helmet at work just because it’s the regulation and I should do it anyhow but I won’t just because they said I had to!! I’ll show them!!”
*goes blind*
I missed the part of freedom from safety orange in the constitution. It’s just a good idea to do it. If you have to be told that you may have bigger problems. At the same time as stated earlier I don’t think it needs to be a law. The consequences you face by not wearing the basic safety equipment while doing potentially dangerous things are going to be far worse than what the law can do to you. I do think children should be protected from bad and irresponsible parents however.
“I’m not going to wear a welders helmet at work just because it’s the regulation and I should do it anyhow but I won’t just because they said I had to!! I’ll show them!!”
*goes blind*
I missed the part of freedom from safety orange in the constitution. It’s just a good idea to do it. If you have to be told that you may have bigger problems. At the same time as stated earlier I don’t think it needs to be a law. The consequences you face by not wearing the basic safety equipment while doing potentially dangerous things are going to be far worse than what the law can do to you. I do think children should be protected from bad and irresponsible parents however.
I don't even want the fraction of a cent of the tax dollars spent printing that ink on paper spent on this.
Irrelevant if the thing is optional or not.
The entire constitution was written because we needed a better government that was LIMITED as opposed to what we just escaped which was:
This.
I agree in most cases. What about youth hunters though? Should there not be some additional protections for them? It seems like that is who this reg is focused on.
No.
So the hell with kids? If their parents endanger them it’s ok?
What laws exactly in you view are constitutional?
Many here have this incorrect notion that the founders established a utopia where there were unicorns and rainbows and everyone could do as they wished.
The reality is if you broke the law back then justice was swift and effective. Trial today, execution tonight.
Know your history.
The reality is if you broke the law back then justice was swift and effective. Trial today, execution tonight.
Know your history.
Celt
.338 Win Mag
Its the same mentality, and its bad for freedom. I wear orange when i hunt, but i dont need a nanny state to force me to.
Celt
.338 Win Mag
Lol.... never heard that version of it.
Doesn’t seem as they are, save for youths. I agree you shouldn’t have to be told to. If you do it’s scary that you’d be hunting in the first place out on public lands.
I can’t drive …. Fifty-fivvvvvve!!
BMF JK
.44 mag
FML I have a huge problem with this , how am I gonna trespass all over other people’s property !!?
Dressed in orange will get me shot dead , no thanks .
Dressed in orange will get me shot dead , no thanks .
Correct.
Ok, so here's the absurd part: a person hunting deer or bear with a gun has to wear orange. At the very same time, on the very same property, a person hunting deer or bear with a bow or crossbow would not be required to wear orange. While all this is happening, at the same time and on the same property, another person is hunting predators with a gun, and not forced to wear orange ! It makes no sense ! Is it smart for a hunter to wear orange ? Sure. Should it be mandated ? No. Absolutely not.
I can say that in my many years of hunting, archery hunters tend to pursue by stalking far more often than gun hunters. If both are on the same property, I would have to think that the archer is far more likely to be shot by the gun hunter than the opposite. However, the new rule isn't concerned with this. Who is it designed to protect ? Now, add in the predator hunter - he is out in the woods well before either of the other two hunters. He has probably been out all night. As dawn nears, he decides to pack it in and get out of the woods before some dipshit with a shotgun full of slugs that has been drinking and playing cards all noght comes stumbling his way into the woods. So while it's still dark, the predator hunter is making his way out while the gun hunter is making his way in. Footsteps. A branch breaks. Movement. BLAM BLAM BLAM !! It's still well before dawn, the OFFICIAL time the season opens for the day, but already the predator hunter is being shot at. It's too dark for any orange to have made any difference. Colors are still indecpherable. The predator hunter isn't required to wear orange anyways. Again, who is this rule protecting ?
The BETTER answer to the problem, assuming there is a problem, is better sportsmanship. Wearing orange in the woods during hunting season certainly helps mitigate the risk of being shot by some dipshit with a gun. But that does not necessitate it being made into law.
I can say that in my many years of hunting, archery hunters tend to pursue by stalking far more often than gun hunters. If both are on the same property, I would have to think that the archer is far more likely to be shot by the gun hunter than the opposite. However, the new rule isn't concerned with this. Who is it designed to protect ? Now, add in the predator hunter - he is out in the woods well before either of the other two hunters. He has probably been out all night. As dawn nears, he decides to pack it in and get out of the woods before some dipshit with a shotgun full of slugs that has been drinking and playing cards all noght comes stumbling his way into the woods. So while it's still dark, the predator hunter is making his way out while the gun hunter is making his way in. Footsteps. A branch breaks. Movement. BLAM BLAM BLAM !! It's still well before dawn, the OFFICIAL time the season opens for the day, but already the predator hunter is being shot at. It's too dark for any orange to have made any difference. Colors are still indecpherable. The predator hunter isn't required to wear orange anyways. Again, who is this rule protecting ?
The BETTER answer to the problem, assuming there is a problem, is better sportsmanship. Wearing orange in the woods during hunting season certainly helps mitigate the risk of being shot by some dipshit with a gun. But that does not necessitate it being made into law.
The safety reg is geared towards youth hunters. When that filter is applied it makes sense.
Uh, NO, IT'S NOT. The OLD rule is geared toward youth hunters. It applied to youth hunters and their mentors. This applies to everyone.
spat
.700 Nitro Express
How is some guy wearing realtree instead of blaze orange going to hurt you ?
spat
.700 Nitro Express
The constitution lays out a few very specific powers the govenment has.
Fashion choice is not among them.
Torturing the commerce clause into giving them domain over anything with a price remotely associated with it is nothing but unconstitutional overreach.
And I know that this is a state action, and those parts of the constitution only bind the feds, but the principle is the same.
And once again, for those who don't seem to get it, just because it's a good idea, no matter how good an idea it is, that's no excuse to make it mandatory.
I'm convinced at this point they could come out with a law saying "you must wear a big 12" strap on on your head at all times" and certain folks on here would be like "Show me exactly were in the constitution it says your free from not wearing one!" and "the law is the law, the sky isn't falling, they did this all the time at the founding of this country."
spat
.700 Nitro Express
Nobody is arguing that wearing orange isn't a good idea.
We are saying that no matter how good an idea it is, it's not the governments place to mandate it.
More extremism and hysteria.
I like the idea of safety regs for youth. Just like how kids can’t fly commercial airliners or drive semi trucks.
More obtuse justifications.