Stealthycat...we have proved nothing. It all depends in which state we hunt, in which weapons are legal to use, and it only proves that we as individuals have different ideas. If crossbows are deemed legal to use in Illinois during archery season by anyone......then fine. Until then I reserve the right to help keep it out of the general archery season.

Cougar - Thats the thing though. If IL rules them legal and allows them in 2004, you'll then be FOR crossbows ? No, your opinions won't change, will they ? What if P&Y changes their rules ? Will your opinions change ?

40 years ago people fought compounds and said they'd never change. My though how things HAVE changed, huh ?

I think this thread is comical in its stupidity.....but I have enough of my own problems without picking on others for theirs!

P.S. This thread would also be boring in its arrogance.......if it wasn't for the fact that it had gotten boring on the site for awhile anyway!

Does that make me evil because I do not like a change in something? Does everything legal mean its right? Abortion is legal so are you saying that is right? Who are you or I to say what is right or legal?

I was just stating my personal opinions, that does not make me right or wrong. Possibly when I am right I could be wrong, and if I am wrong, I could be right. How can you tell the difference?[8D][>:]

My last post........this should be in the politics forum, not here.

By the way Stealthycat....I will be bowhunting until mid January when the season finally ends..........good luck to you.

Cougar - You too. Remember, if you can't shoot one with your martin (assuming you still shoot one ?) c'mon down to Arkansas and we'll arm you with a Wal-Mart, Barnett Demon special and have you killin 'em and fillin tags by noon ! LOL

Certainly legal isn't always ethical and often laws should not even be on the books and don't reflect the majorities opinions anyway.

I prefer to shoot a compound bow but thats me. I know people who use both and I don't hold that against them. Not every person who likes to hunt is willing or able to spend the time and effort in becoming an adequate archer. I would rather see a deer taken cleanly than wounded .

Hey Big Country,

Yeah....I confess.....I am rather easily amused. It's nice to know that a few of us maintain some semblence of "sense of humor"! I figure when I can no longer laugh at myself I may as well roll over and let them start throwing in the dirt.

But you have to admit....this thread has produced some of the best "belly laughs" many of us have had lately[&:]!

Dave

P.S. I haven't seen this much s**t slung since my days of "forking/shoveling" out the barnyard stalls![:-]

Have ya'll noticed the guys who actuallt HUNT in states that have legalized crossbows aint got much of a problem with it ?

Aint that odd, that those who should be MOST adament about it (because they have to hunt with crossbowers) are not.

Cougar Mag does that statement mean that any hunter that uses a mechanical trigger release with their compound is illegal. He is not supporting full draw string tension, the mechanical trigger is, not even full draw weight.

My statements are that if you include compounds then you should include crossbows because:
[ul]Both give advantages over longbows and recurves[*] Crossbows are more traditional because they were in use thousands of years before compounds[*] Both crossbows & compounds have the same effective range (compounds maybe slightly greater)[*] The need for greater numbers of hunters out weights the selfish needs and wants of a few
[/ul]

Crossbows are not the enemy here, it is the people that only want it their way when they have no honest data or evidence to back up their selfish needs.

I see that you went to one place for your defination of archery equipment. Try the dictionary, or your federal government, you will see a much different defination. Something like :A device that propels an object (arrow) by a means of a limb and string. Alot of difinations will also include listings of such devices; long bows, recurves, crossbows, compounds. If you were to check with a defination from say in the early 1960's compounds would not be included as they were not developed.

GrumpyTom - Your logical reasons and sound statements will fall on deaf ears. Why ? Thank the PBS first and foremost, then blame ignorance on the rest

[]