jusputtn

Had some brown trout eggs for the first time. Fried them in a little olive oil with a dash of salt. They were a little chewy and had a bit of a yolk flavor.

My understanding of cartridge history is that the 257 was quite popular until the 243 came along with slightly better ballistics and edged it out. Don't know what you consider to be low-end, that's a bit subjective, but Savage makes a good rifle and the Accu-trigger is excellent. Have you considered hunting for a used rifle? You may get lucky if you're patient.

NRA hat.

Subsistence hunting isn't legal around here. Move to the Alaskan bush.

Things are turning. Our efforts got Schenectady County to pass a real resolution, to repeal the SAFE Act, at the April meeting. We're also getting better press coverage. In example, when my Assemblyman opened his district office in Schenectady there were about 2 dozen protesters from 2A NY Grassroots. In the paper the next morning there was a picture of the protestors with a caption about their displeasure with the SAFE Act and nothing written about the Assemblyman himself. Keep writing, calling and demonstrating. Even if it takes court action to undo the SAFE Act, we're getting the message out that we will not lie down and submit. Also, I believe that our efforts in this state had an impact on the Senate's decision to reject Obama's anti-gun legislation.

That's not surprising though it is satisfying. Just more evidence that the liberal media and anti-gun politicians have been lying.

Strength of pro-gun support may vary be region, however the Constitution is not regional. The Senators didn't fail, they listened to their Constituents. It's what they are supposed to do.

How did it happen? How about because your "90%" stat is a fabricated figure. BTW, you also forgot, again, to mention the Democrats that voted against it.

Looks great!

I find it disrespectful that Senators Gillibrand's and Schumer's email pages drop down menus for Subject do not have a choice for Constitutional Rights, Gun Rights or the Second Amendment. The closest Congressman Tonko comes is Other.

Thank you. It will be interesting to see what he has to say if he responds to it personally again. I don't see how he can justify using the same rhetoric but I'm sure that in that tiny little mind of his he'll find a way. In any case, I'll be asking him. He's having an open house at his new office next week. It's literally 1 block from my house.

Thought I'd entertain you with the latest letter that I wrote to my Assemblyman. He personally responded to my last letter, I think I got his attention as I'd referred to the Brady Campaign as a minority fringe group. He holds Brady near and dear to his heart. In the letter, he stated that the 2A is for militia's only. I learned a lot from reading Justice Scalia's majority opinion for DC vs Heller. He address a lot of the anti-gun rhetoric that you hear. It's a fairly easy read too, just takes a bit. Here's a link to it. http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html Dear Assemblyman Steck, Thank you for your response, dated March 19, to my letter, dated March 6. It was the first time that I received a personal response from a legislative representative. The Second Amendment defines the historical need for State militias. However, in your letter, you left out the fact that the militias were composed of individual, non-military personnel that bore their own arms. You left out the fact that the right to keep and bear arms was a pre-existing individual right pre-dating the formation of the United States. The following are a few examples of the overwhelming evidence in support of these facts: “In numerous instances, “bear arms” was unambiguously used to refer to the carrying of weapons outside of an organized militia.”[1] The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.[2] “Petitioners justify their limitation of “bear arms” to the military context by pointing out the unremarkable fact that it was often used in that context.”1 Furthermore, the definition of regulated has changed over the years. Regulated, in the context of the Second Amendment, does not refer to the government’s authority to limit the purchase, sale or possession of firearms. “Finally, the adjective “well-regulated” implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training.”1 Whether the majority of your constituents support the SAFE Act is inconsequential and has no bearing on constitutional law. The matter of the individual right to bear arms was decided before the Supreme Court. I suggest you read Justice Scalia’s Opinion of the Court as your misguided convictions are addressed in it (copy enclosed for your convenience). The historical evidence is indicative that the SAFE Act most definitely violates my constitutional and civil rights, at both the state[3] and federal level. I respectfully request that you sponsor legislation to repeal the SAFE Act, amendments are not acceptable. Very Truly Yours, [1] Justice Scalia, Opinion of the Court, District of Columbia vs. Heller [2] New York State Constitution, Article XII, Defense, Section 1 [3]New York Civil Rights Law, Article II, Paragraph 4

You may want to check out this Popov thing more. I checked out a few more things on their site and there are normal statements on other bills. I had added my personal comment to the poll and I believe that it went through. I also just responded to the UN Arms Treaty question. That's another big item that we should be protesting but I think we are busy with our own government at the moment. Here's the link. http://www.popvox.com/blog/2013/issue-spotlight-firearms-113th/

Why not use the sling you've already got and remember to pack some parachord that you likely already have?

A well placed shot is a well placed shot. It'll get 'er done.