|
|
|
NOTE!
This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
Knowing The Regulations is Your Responsibility as a Hunter
Submitted by:
David Williamson
Website: http://constitutionnetwork.com
|
There
are 2 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Throughout my career as a hunter and someone employed by the outdoor industry, I have hunted in many areas of the country. In doing so, one of the most time-consuming tasks after the tag has been drawn and the hunting license was purchased is the reading and understanding of the state’s hunting regulations. Each state is different and some states are very different than home when it comes to their game laws. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(8/27/2018)
|
Noitisn't. Quitlyin'.
The rules are:
You go out. You kill the sumbitch. You field dress it. You load it on the truck. You take it home for skinning and butchering. You cook it and eat it.
Those are the rules. Simple |
| Comment by:
lucky5eddie
(8/28/2018)
|
| No PHORTO, its not. If we are going to try and maintain the moral high ground on hunting then we must abide by the rules and regulations, they are there for a reason. And as long as they do not inhibit our right to put meat on the table through responsible game management practices then they are a good thing. I'd like for my grandchildren to be able to hunt the very same kinds of game animals I have hunted, 50 years from now. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| No kingdom can be secured otherwise than by arming the people. The possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave. He, who has nothing, and who himself belongs to another, must be defended by him, whose property he is, and needs no arms. But he, who thinks he is his own master, and has what he can call his own, ought to have arms to defend himself, and what he possesses; else he lives precariously, and at discretion. — James Burgh, Political Disquisitions: Or, an Enquiry into Public Errors, Defects, and Abuses [London, 1774-1775]. |
|
|
