hogwild63

Sorry it took so long, Tom. 2007 has been a challenging year for HHH. Glad we could help.

Nothing wrong with the Texas mom in this house or the one I grew up in. I wonder how fast they would gain their sanity if they were set a fire?

I found a 2nd job at Academy Sports working in the hunting/fishing department and mainly work behind the gun counter. It is a good 2nd job. I also work 7 days a week so I can relate. I used to have a 2nd job at Hoome Depot. It was great in that I was in the best shape in a while working in the lumber/building materials department but it was too much physically and was starting to wear on me. Home Depot paid more and I was able to get a fork lift license but it was just too much.

Thaks to all for your suggestions. I have seen most of the bows mentioned except the ignition. I got my homework cut out. The main thing about the adrenaline is that I get a 15% discount on an already low price.

I am looking for opinions on a good bow for a 12 year old youth. My son is 12 and has a small Team Realtree Brave youth combo that he has been toying with for years. He is pretty god with it but has out grown it a couple of years ago. I know nothing about bows. I do work p/t at Academy Sports but they are very limited on bows. I do like the Browning Micro Adrenaline - which Academy has in stock. If there is a previous thread on this subject, please provide the link. Thanks

All of my pictures had the word "deer" in common. just kidding. Some key words are HHH, Black Hawaiian, Michael, foggy morning

Re: Room for Christian Outdoorsmen and women [ QUOTE ] Sorry, but you are WAY off base here in you reply to my question. And don't start preaching to me about what I should or shouldn't read. [/ QUOTE ] Sorry, didn't mean to "preach". I was trying to say to go to the source and not rely on others to show you what Christianity is about. There is a lot to learn if you go beyond just reading the Bible by going to other sources such as commentaries and such. Those things help me understand what I read and the Bible makes more sense. I'll shut up now

Re: Room for Christian Outdoorsmen and women [ QUOTE ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Kinda sounds to me this is going to happen, so can people like me have a "On the fence about god" forum as well......? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- It's called the Lounge. [/ QUOTE ] On second thought, bring your on-the-fenceism to the forum.

Re: Room for Christian Outdoorsmen and women [ QUOTE ] Guess that ain't enough to get into heaven, from what I'm feeling here. [/ QUOTE ] huh!!!! Where'd that come from? I do not see anywhere on here where someone mentioned being on this particular forum in order to get to heaven. I guess I'm confused. I thought this is America where Christians still had the right gather and worship anywhere they wanted??? It's a shame this will probably be griped into non-existance.

Re: Room for Christian Outdoorsmen and women [ QUOTE ] Not logic, it is real life, I've seen it EVERYDAY. Now can someone please enlighten me? [/ QUOTE ] Ok, so you see it EVERYDAY. Does that change anything? God is still God. Does that mean you should not check out the Word of God for yourself and see why someone who lived 2000 years ago is still impacting peoples lives today? Some of the most profound Christians came from sorted backgrounds. Some of the biggest charlatans are the most charismatic. Seems like instead of pointing out that there are alot of hypocrites (or just messed up people needing a savior), one would study the Word of God real hard to know which is which. Get some Bible commentaries, Bible dictionaries, etc. Sometimes it is good to know what the word meant in Hebrew or Greek before it was translated into English. For example, the word "love". Which one does the Bible use for "God so loved the world...?" Aheb, hesed, agape, eros, or philia? You could just go to the Politics and Religion forum and ask for enlightenment on that subject, but I think you would get alot of agreement and not much enlightenment. Maybe if we had a forum where people could post devotionals and testimonies and prayer requests....

Re: Room for Christian Outdoorsmen and women [ QUOTE ] Kinda sounds to me this is going to happen, so can people like me have a "On the fence about god" forum as well......? [/ QUOTE ] It's called the Lounge.

Re: Room for Christian Outdoorsmen and women [ QUOTE ] You call it ridicule, I call it opinion. [/ QUOTE ] "Testimony, Trinity and Devotion?" In my opinion, I think it is a good idea. Why create another room? Because they can.

Re: Tomb of Jesus Wow, great sermon pastor buckee!!!! Couldn't have said it better. (I guess that is why I didn't say it) Definately, if it could be proved that physical remains of Jesus are found and that he married any woman, his Diety would be false.

Re: Tomb of Jesus If there are physical remains of Jesus on this earth, that would make the Bible untrue in that it claims Jesus ascended into heaven. This is why there were 2 Roman guards stationed at the tomb as the Chief priests new of the claim Jesus would ascend. Matthew 27: 62-66. The only thing the DNA established is that the Jesus and the Mary in the tomb were not related to each other and, since they "think" it was a family tomb, then they made the assumption that the Jesus and the Mary were married and the others in the tomb were their children - but they did not compare the DNA of the others in the tomb to see if the DNA matched with either Jesus or Mary. The other thing about the DNA is that there is no DNA from Jesus or Mary to compare the DNA of the bones in the tomb. The assumption was is that the tomb said "Jesus, son of Joseph". However, Jesus, Joseph and Mary were amounst the most common names in those times. It would be like discovering a grave site in the year 4000 with the head stones saying, "Mike, son of Bob" and "Lisa".

Re: Ralph & Vicki Cianciarulo Great pics! Me and my son met Ralph at the Bass Pro in Grapevine (Dallas) Tx. Great guy.

Re: A Little Depressed Today How did I miss this one? I will say prayers for you and your family tonight. Sorry to hear of your loss.

Re: Jim Zumbo\'s anti comments!! [ QUOTE ] For all of the bashing that Uncle Ted takes here and elsewhere, I'm glad to see him take in Jim Zumbo. He is doing what all sportmen should do, educating the ignorant so that they may see the light. Jim Zumbo can overcome this and be a great crusader for the 2nd ammendment with a little education. [/ QUOTE ] That's more like it! Like I said, I'm the optimist. I don't think Zumbo got where he was by being a wuss when faced with adversity! I welcome him in his new adventure in the education of his "non-traditional" hunting experience. I can't wait to see the video of him hunting with Uncle Ted with AR's. I'm beginning to think Jim is handling this better than most in the hunting community! He is taking his consequences like a man and doing something about it. Kudos.

Re: Jim Zumbo\'s anti comments!! I understand where you are coming from Buckee, but I do not think discussing this on this bb got him dropped like a hot potato. Apparently, ALL of his sponsors felt like their assests needed protecting. I do not know how many on this bb contacted his sponsors, but I surely did not. Do you think that the majority of the people that responded were on a mission to ruin the man? What percentage of the responders were out to get him? What percentage of the responders just wanted to express their being offended and wanted some action? He expressed an opinion that insulted a growing portion of their customers, then he used the "T" word (HUGE!) and the uproar is not justified? I am really having a hard time for being chastized for expressing my opinion that a professional writer should have been fired for putting the companies in a compromising position. He is not a bad man as you say. Would I have lunch with him? YOU BET! But I will not minimize what he did, nor do I think I magnified it either by discussing it on this bb. He said in his apology he did not want pity! If he does what he says he will do in his apology, I think good things will come of this. If he is as good as you say he is, then adversity should not bring him down completely. Call me an optimist, but I think he will rebound from this and his career will just change direction slightly.

Re: Should I become pro-staff? You haven't said what the product is, but my questio would be do you believe in the product 100% to be able to "push" the product? If your heart is not completely in the product, then people will know, especially if they are not crazy about the product in the first place. You have seen the "battles" on these bb's over which product is better than another similar product. No perks will make up for what you will feel when someone bashes your product in public at a show. If you are 100% about the product, then you will be confident. If you have any doubts, they will sense it. If this experience will help your career in the future (after school), then it may be worth it. If it will not pad your resume for your intended career, then I would find a p/t job in that field. Take advantage of your time now to "pad" your resume with relavent experience.

Re: Jim Zumbo\'s anti comments!! [ QUOTE ] The damage has been done, and I believe sportsman did it this time, not Jim. [/ QUOTE ] Sorry buckee, I cannot agree with that at all. I am still hopeful that much good will come of this but that sentiment I cannot agree with. He is not the only professional person that has lost everything through a mistake and he will not be the last. It's kind of like when a politician says something degrading toward the NRA, I think, "hey, he just insulted me". His apology can be accepted and I do accept it, but I cannot accept blame for his mistake. That is what you and Othmar are proposing is that WE take the blame for his mistake.

Re: It\'s sad that many of us.......(i.e. Zumbo) Sorry Buckee, I cannot agree with Othmar 100%. I do not believe our response will do more damage than his original comments. I DO agree that some are over the edge and not warranted. I have not seen those responses on the bb's I frequent.

Re: Jim Zumbo\'s anti comments!! [ QUOTE ] Zumbo's blog is posted earlier in this thread. Maybe I'm missing it...but I cannot find where he states that personal ownership or use of these weapons for target practice or self-defence, should be banned. It is NOT there. He simply states that, as a hunter, he doesn't like the use of these firearms as hunting guns...Is he alone in those beliefs? [/ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] He offered his thought that this was a bad image for hunters. Okay, that's his opinion. But, he went even further, calling for game departments to ban the use of these rifles for hunting. After crossing the line and calling for a banning of those guns for hunting, he firmly planted his foot on a land mine and called AR-15s "terrorist rifles." [/ QUOTE ] Simply states??!! You are minimizing what he said, Bob. HE was a professional and did not act it. There were many ways he could have expressed his opinion. The hunting community is sending a message that we will not tolerate this even from one of our own. This to shall pass (like a kidney stone, but it'll pass). Sediment = sentiment. (must have been a Fruedian slip)

Re: It\'s sad that many of us.......(i.e. Zumbo) [ QUOTE ] Shocking. I can't believe so many of us feel this negative about Zumbo after one emotionally charged statement. I absolutely HATE hunting near anyone that uses those guns. They do have a place and it is at the firing range. I too have emailed all of his sponsored and informed them of my feelings. 50 years of dedication to the outdoors industry, gone due to the pigheadedness of a few. And they do look like "terrorist" rifles. [/ QUOTE ] The point is, it is NOT a "terrorist" rifle. http://www.guntalk.com/site.php?pageID=15&newsID=12 Tipping Point -- Suicide on the Web Something fascinating just happened. I suspect it will be studied by those who do such things, but at this point, it is clear that last weekend we saw a sea change in the way gun owners react to threats. If you heard Gun Talk last Sunday, Feb. 18, you heard Jim Zumbo, longtime hunting writer for Outdoor Life, addressing a blog (online comment piece) he wrote. If you didn't hear it, you can download the archive file here: http://guntalk.libsyn.com. It's the February 18 show, "part C." Jim basically committed career suicide. In short, he wrote in his blog on the Outdoor Life web site that he had just learned (while on a hunt) that some people use AR-15 rifles for hunting. He offered his thought that this was a bad image for hunters. Okay, that's his opinion. But, he went even further, calling for game departments to ban the use of these rifles for hunting. After crossing the line and calling for a banning of those guns for hunting, he firmly planted his foot on a land mine and called AR-15s "terrorist rifles." The explosion from that misstep was heard throughout the firearms industry. You see, the AR-15 is one of the most popular firearm platforms going. I own three of them and love to shoot them. I don't consider myself a terrorist, and neither do the millions of others who own them and shoot them for recreation, or who own them for personal defense. On "Personal Defense TV" we have been showing that the thinking among security trainers has moved away from the shotgun as the ideal home defense gun, and in many quarters, it now favors the AR-15 or some other carbine (short rifle). Zumbo had made a mistake from which there was no recovery. He wrote his blog while on a hunting trip. Just before going on the air, I checked the internet forums (fora?) and found a firestorm. People were livid, and with good reason. Some of the comments were clearly over the top, but most of them conveyed the rage that comes from a feeling of being betrayed by someone you thought of as one of your own. We were only 30 minutes away from going on the air for a live, three-hour broadcast, so I called Zumbo's home. He was still enroute home from his hunting trip and knew nothing about the controversy he had created. I left word that if he wanted to come on the show to make a statement, he could call in. During the last hour of the show, he decided to go onto Gun Talk, live. He had just posted an apology on the Outdoor Life web site. His explanation was that he just didn't know anything about these rifles, and had no idea that people actually hunted with them. I felt for Jim, but I also knew that in calling for the banning (even if only for hunting) of any gun was incredible, but calling them rifles used by terrorists was, quite simply, unconscionable. Having just read some of the comments on a few of the online groups where people were posting Zumbo's home address and personal information, calling for . . . well, it was hard to know what they were calling for . . . I made a comment about our willingness to eat our own. Some of that was based on hearing gunnies say that they won't buy Ruger firearms because of something Bill Ruger said two decades ago. Hey, the man is dead and buried. Still, in this case, I was wrong. That's not what was going on here, as I discovered when I got off the air. To listeners who took offense, I do apologize. The outrage by gun owners is completely understandable. To put it in context, Zumbo's comments came only days after we saw the introduction of a bill in Congress to bring back the Clinton Gun Ban (the so-called "assault weapons" ban). The final nail in the coffin was when-- Sunday afternoon -- the Brady Campaign (the leading group working to restrict gun rights) posted Zumbo's comments to several places on the net, saying, in effect, "See, even the top hunting writer says these rifles have no legitimate use." At that point, it was all over for Jim Zumbo. Thousands upon thousands of emails were directed to Remington and all the sponsors of Zumbo's television show on The Outdoor Channel. The emails were all pretty much the same -- dump Zumbo or I'll never buy any of your products. Remington first posted a message saying it was severing all ties with Zumbo. On Monday, the company said it was ending its sponsorship of him. Other companies followed, and it continues. Outdoor Life removed Zumbo's blog, and his apology. Each had generated thousands of comments -- almost all of them hugely negative. We can take away from this experience several observations. The first is that this attitude of "just let them take those ugly, black guns" is common among hunters and competitive shooters. Anyone with that attitude is a fool. Sit down with a hunter from England or Australia, hear him tell the story of what happened there, and watch the tears well up in his eyes when he says they never thought the government would take away their hunting guns. To gun banners, there is no such thing as a good gun. They want them all. When Tom Diaz, of the Violence Policy Center, was on Gun Talk, I forced him to admit that he would like to ban all guns. What about the police, I asked. Once we get all the other guns, he said, the police won't need their guns, either. A ban on black guns, or "Saturday Night Specials," or 50-caliber rifles, is a ban on all our guns. There is no such thing as a bad gun or a good gun. We can't throw babies off the back of the sled, thinking it will keep the wolves away from us. The next thing we learn from this is that the world has just changed. This entire episode took place inside of 36 hours, on a weekend -- a three-day weekend for President's Day. It happened...and this is important...entirely on the internet. The original posting was on the net, the reaction was on the net, the emails demanding that companies break off with Zumbo were on the net, and the reactions from the companies were all on their web sites. This was completely an internet event. It was a nuclear explosion, with tens of thousands of messages posted, spanning all the firearms-related web sites. How often over the last 30 years, as I fought for gun rights, traveled to Washington, DC, wrote about gun rights, spoke at the Gun Rights Policy Conference, and for the last 14 years, broadcasted about gun rights on the radio, have I lamented the inability to get gun owners motivated to protect their own rights? This powerful example shows that it can be done. Now, the real question is whether we can generate that kind of response when we need to defeat a gun ban. Can we melt down mail servers of elected representatives the way gun owners hammered the servers at various companies? I don't know. What I do know is that we are facing more calls for gun bans and restrictions on our gun rights over the next few years than we have seen in the last 40 years. Someone on the side of gun rights needs to develop a way to replicate this . . . this "Zumbo Effect" . . . to beat back the assault which has already started. We must find a way to "Zumbo" our attackers in Congress, in the state houses, and wherever they assault our rights. Tom Gresham

Re: Jim Zumbo\'s anti comments!! Sorry, one more thing but I thought this was worthwhile. So you think this is NOT a 2nd amendment issue??!! http://www.guntalk.com/site.php?pageID=15&newsID=12 Tipping Point -- Suicide on the Web Something fascinating just happened. I suspect it will be studied by those who do such things, but at this point, it is clear that last weekend we saw a sea change in the way gun owners react to threats. If you heard Gun Talk last Sunday, Feb. 18, you heard Jim Zumbo, longtime hunting writer for Outdoor Life, addressing a blog (online comment piece) he wrote. If you didn't hear it, you can download the archive file here: http://guntalk.libsyn.com. It's the February 18 show, "part C." Jim basically committed career suicide. In short, he wrote in his blog on the Outdoor Life web site that he had just learned (while on a hunt) that some people use AR-15 rifles for hunting. He offered his thought that this was a bad image for hunters. Okay, that's his opinion. But, he went even further, calling for game departments to ban the use of these rifles for hunting. After crossing the line and calling for a banning of those guns for hunting, he firmly planted his foot on a land mine and called AR-15s "terrorist rifles." The explosion from that misstep was heard throughout the firearms industry. You see, the AR-15 is one of the most popular firearm platforms going. I own three of them and love to shoot them. I don't consider myself a terrorist, and neither do the millions of others who own them and shoot them for recreation, or who own them for personal defense. On "Personal Defense TV" we have been showing that the thinking among security trainers has moved away from the shotgun as the ideal home defense gun, and in many quarters, it now favors the AR-15 or some other carbine (short rifle). Zumbo had made a mistake from which there was no recovery. He wrote his blog while on a hunting trip. Just before going on the air, I checked the internet forums (fora?) and found a firestorm. People were livid, and with good reason. Some of the comments were clearly over the top, but most of them conveyed the rage that comes from a feeling of being betrayed by someone you thought of as one of your own. We were only 30 minutes away from going on the air for a live, three-hour broadcast, so I called Zumbo's home. He was still enroute home from his hunting trip and knew nothing about the controversy he had created. I left word that if he wanted to come on the show to make a statement, he could call in. During the last hour of the show, he decided to go onto Gun Talk, live. He had just posted an apology on the Outdoor Life web site. His explanation was that he just didn't know anything about these rifles, and had no idea that people actually hunted with them. I felt for Jim, but I also knew that in calling for the banning (even if only for hunting) of any gun was incredible, but calling them rifles used by terrorists was, quite simply, unconscionable. Having just read some of the comments on a few of the online groups where people were posting Zumbo's home address and personal information, calling for . . . well, it was hard to know what they were calling for . . . I made a comment about our willingness to eat our own. Some of that was based on hearing gunnies say that they won't buy Ruger firearms because of something Bill Ruger said two decades ago. Hey, the man is dead and buried. Still, in this case, I was wrong. That's not what was going on here, as I discovered when I got off the air. To listeners who took offense, I do apologize. The outrage by gun owners is completely understandable. To put it in context, Zumbo's comments came only days after we saw the introduction of a bill in Congress to bring back the Clinton Gun Ban (the so-called "assault weapons" ban). The final nail in the coffin was when-- Sunday afternoon -- the Brady Campaign (the leading group working to restrict gun rights) posted Zumbo's comments to several places on the net, saying, in effect, "See, even the top hunting writer says these rifles have no legitimate use." At that point, it was all over for Jim Zumbo. Thousands upon thousands of emails were directed to Remington and all the sponsors of Zumbo's television show on The Outdoor Channel. The emails were all pretty much the same -- dump Zumbo or I'll never buy any of your products. Remington first posted a message saying it was severing all ties with Zumbo. On Monday, the company said it was ending its sponsorship of him. Other companies followed, and it continues. Outdoor Life removed Zumbo's blog, and his apology. Each had generated thousands of comments -- almost all of them hugely negative. We can take away from this experience several observations. The first is that this attitude of "just let them take those ugly, black guns" is common among hunters and competitive shooters. Anyone with that attitude is a fool. Sit down with a hunter from England or Australia, hear him tell the story of what happened there, and watch the tears well up in his eyes when he says they never thought the government would take away their hunting guns. To gun banners, there is no such thing as a good gun. They want them all. When Tom Diaz, of the Violence Policy Center, was on Gun Talk, I forced him to admit that he would like to ban all guns. What about the police, I asked. Once we get all the other guns, he said, the police won't need their guns, either. A ban on black guns, or "Saturday Night Specials," or 50-caliber rifles, is a ban on all our guns. There is no such thing as a bad gun or a good gun. We can't throw babies off the back of the sled, thinking it will keep the wolves away from us. The next thing we learn from this is that the world has just changed. This entire episode took place inside of 36 hours, on a weekend -- a three-day weekend for President's Day. It happened...and this is important...entirely on the internet. The original posting was on the net, the reaction was on the net, the emails demanding that companies break off with Zumbo were on the net, and the reactions from the companies were all on their web sites. This was completely an internet event. It was a nuclear explosion, with tens of thousands of messages posted, spanning all the firearms-related web sites. How often over the last 30 years, as I fought for gun rights, traveled to Washington, DC, wrote about gun rights, spoke at the Gun Rights Policy Conference, and for the last 14 years, broadcasted about gun rights on the radio, have I lamented the inability to get gun owners motivated to protect their own rights? This powerful example shows that it can be done. Now, the real question is whether we can generate that kind of response when we need to defeat a gun ban. Can we melt down mail servers of elected representatives the way gun owners hammered the servers at various companies? I don't know. What I do know is that we are facing more calls for gun bans and restrictions on our gun rights over the next few years than we have seen in the last 40 years. Someone on the side of gun rights needs to develop a way to replicate this . . . this "Zumbo Effect" . . . to beat back the assault which has already started. We must find a way to "Zumbo" our attackers in Congress, in the state houses, and wherever they assault our rights. Tom Gresham

Re: Jim Zumbo\'s anti comments!! [ QUOTE ] AK's ARE NOT HUNTING RIFLES...and trying to find your personal justifications to make them such, will only convince the ignorant and ill-informed...and all-the-while giving fodder to the anti's that we, as hunters, are nothing more than a bunch of Rambo-ites, jumping from tree to tree in the forest. AK's ARE THE WEAPON OF CHOICE FOR STREET GANGS AND TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS...WORLDWIDE. That is a statement of fact...and is what Zumbo is saying. It trully ticks me off that people, including his sponsors, would turn on him so quickly. Shame on you...shame on you all...Your loyalty to a well respected member of our fraternity is under-whelming. [/ QUOTE ] Wow!! I just saw this comment. As a Probation Officer in a major US city, I can tell you that you are mis-informed about the AK being the weapon of choice of gangs. The only reason that may have been true at one time was due to them being vary available and relatively inexpensive. They are no more prolific than any other gun; they get more press though. Gangs will take advantage of ANY gun they can get readily and inexpensive. I have yet to read one arrest report that included an AK in the report. I have, however, read alot of reports that included handguns of all sorts. So what you are saying is that if I wear my Realtree camo and my AK instead of my .223 and go hunt coyotes, that makes me a Rambo-ite??!!! I still would take one shot at a time and make sure it is a one-shot kill. I will still obey all hunting laws and regulations. I will still make sure of what is behind my target. etc. Bob, I understand your sediment about Jim, but I think your comments would do more to advance the anti-fodder than anyone else's on this thread.