Mr VJP

Great, an educator that can't spell donut.

No real difference that would matter, unless you want to use heavy bullets in your rifle someday. You can get a 220 grain load in the .30-06 if you ever needed it. The .270 doesn't go nearly that heavy. If you were to get the best cartridge for all your coyote, deer & black bear hunting, that will have light recoil, you'd want a 7mm-08.

THE .32 WS WAS ORIGINALLY INTRODUCED TO BE A BETTER ROUND FOR DEER IN A LEVER RIFLE THAN THE .30-30. IT DIDN'T OFFER MUCH MORE VELOCITY SO IT NEVER BECAME A HOT SELLER, BUT IT WILL DO ANYTHING THE .30-30 WILL DO. AND THE 170 GRAIN BULLET IS PROBABLY THE MOST EFFECTIVE BULLET TO PUT IN IT WHEN SHOOTING DEER OUT TO 100 YARDS. DO NOT MODIFY THAT RIFLE IN ANY WAY UNTIL YOU HAVE IT CHECKED OUT BY A GOOD GUN APPRAISER. IT COULD BE AN OLD AND RARE MODEL THAT IS WORTH THOUSANDS.

This is the stuff I've been trying to warn everyone about. It's gonna get a lot worse than this too. Doubt it if you want, but the plan is to disarm all average citizens. Laws are being passed that will remove your 2nd Amendment rights for any minor gun infraction. It's an end run strategy around the Constitution. By the way, fighting this sheit in court is a losing battle, as the law puts the offense on you, not the government.

So....

I sent you a message. Check them.

This thread wasn't supposed to suggest ALL NY cops are against you. The title said MAY BE against your gun rights. The point being, don't assume the cop you encounter is supportive. That could be a huge mistake.

"The government may not descend to the evil of preventive law. The government cannot treat men as guilty until they have proven themselves to be, for the moment, innocent. No law can require the individual to prove that he won't violate another's rights, in the absence of evidence that he is going to. But this is precisely what gun control laws do. Gun control laws use force against the individual in the absence of any specific evidence that he is about to commit a crime. They say to the rational, responsible gun owner: you may not have or carry a gun because others have used them irrationally or irresponsibly. Thus, preventive law sacrifices the rational and responsible to the irrational and irresponsible. This is unjust and intolerable. The government may coercively intervene only when there is an objective threat that someone is going to use force. ... Statistics about how often gun-related crimes occur in the population is no evidence against you. That's collectivist thinking. The choices made by others are irrelevant to the choices that you will make. ... The government may respond only to specific threats, objectively evident. It has no right to initiate force against the innocent. And a gun owner is innocent until specific evidence arises that he is threatening to initiate force. Laws prohibiting or regulating guns across the board represent the evil of preventive law and should be abolished." --columnist Harry Binswanger

Read the future our elected tyrants want to put us in. http://www.jack-donovan.com/axis/2012/12/who-will-control-the-guns/ The police state controls the guns, and they use the guns to control you. Gun control advocates are, in effect, advocating a police state. I think we should start calling them out on it. I think we should start referring to them as “Police State Advocates,” because a police state is essentially what they are asking for.

The longer you stay in the presence of the lawman, and the more you talk, the more likely you will say or do something that will get you in trouble. The law is in the business of making arrests. It doesn't care about who it arrests. You can then, "Tell it to the Judge" as they say. Speak only when needed, offer absolutely no extra info, don't assume the lawman wants to be a friend, and get away from the threat as soon as possible, lest you wind up in a place you won't like. As far as the "minority" question, most cops are of the intimidator school of police work. They soon learn this is the fastest way to get things done. It's not the right way, or the best way, just the easiest way. If you doubt this, try having a civil debate with a cop about the facts regarding your violation of the speeding laws.

There are 3 types of L.E.O.s. The Good Cops. They follow the law, serve and protect. The minority fit into this category. The Intimidator Cops. They try to get you to comply with their demands, which are sometimes not legally required, by making you fear them. The majority fit into this category. The Rogue Cops. This is the cop that will break the law if it suits his purposes or agenda. If he kills an unarmed person, he may put a knife in his hand to claim it was a justified shooting, or put drugs in your car to frame you, or PUT AN EXTRA BULLET IN YOUR PISTOL MAGAZINE in order to bust you and get a warrant to search your house. They are few, but God help you if you happen to be their target. Some cops will also do whatever their administrations tell them to do in order to gain favor with them and promotions from them. I suspect that is who we are seeing in this video. As a bit of advice for you all, since you cannot tell what type of cop you are dealing with when you are confronted by one, it is best to end the encounter as soon as possible for your own protection. I hope I don't need to say more.

If you really were to do this, you would violate a number of NY laws. Unsecured weapon, illegal magazine, civil disobedience, inciting a riot, and any other law they could dream up against you, etc. I'm sure a cop would have shown up in a short time with his gun drawn and arrested you, if he didn't just decide to shoot first and ask questions later. We live in a free country. You're free to do whatever they let you do.

Doc, all it takes is one cop like this to pull you over and ruin your life when he decides you've violated a gun law. But I'm sure you'll excuse away whatever he does to you.

Check it out http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/09/25/hidden-camera-catches-culprit-taking-man-second-amendment-sign/

Easier, as in taking the path of least resistance. But like water, following the path of least resistance often leads you right into the sewer. Nobody ever considered the long term damage to society of putting lots of really crazy people on drugs and setting them free. And the leftist progressives refuse to consider the damage society will suffer if they ever achieve their goal of banning all guns from law abiding citizens. The crazy part is thinking it would be OK to do it and just wait to see how it all works out.

Hey Doc, nobody ever said anarchy was the desired goal. The goal is following the US Constitution, respecting rights and the rule of law. That's what this country did until recently and it worked perfectly. It's only now many feel they don't have to follow the law and that is where all of these problems come from. A Police State is rising in this land, far beyond occasional police abuses, and our rights and freedoms are being trampled. If anarchy becomes the rule, it will be because authorities don't follow the rule of law, not because the citizens didn't. I think the author meant it's better to have no police, than to have a Police State that is totally out of control and operating unlawfully. I don't think that is a stupid statement. If all LEO's were like the one in the youtube video above we wouldn't have any problems. But there are some who would have approached those protesters and shot them, and then received support from their bosses and their elected town officials.

I applaud their decision not to imprison their fine, upstanding constituents for political purposes. http://www.gunnews.com/safe-act-new-yorks-power-struggle/ These guys know an unconstitutional law isn't legal, ergo, not enforceable. They are taking action now, rather than waiting for the judiciary to act, and sending a strong message to tyrants they can't get away with tyranny in a free society.

Wake up. I hope you clicked on the hyper link in the first post. Otherwise the other posts aren't clear.

Thank You Democrats and Obama. Keep raising the debt ceiling.

If you don't believe ALL Democrats are against private gun ownership of anything not used for "Sporting Purposes" (which they get to define), just read their platform statement from the last Democratic National Convention. It's part of the party's agenda and all Democrats are expected to abide by it. If they don't agree with it, why are they still Democrats.

Yeah, NY Republicans who represent the NYC area. Like are said, not all the GOP is good for gun owners or you Constitutional rights. But the Democrats are surely AGAINST them.

Sure we have. You just don't understand the answer. Essential Liberty Former Heritage president Ed Feulner: "[W]hat has allowed our Constitution to endure for centuries while its counterparts elsewhere are continually replaced? One key is that our Constitution is simple. It's small enough to fit in a pocket. It's written in clear language anyone can understand. It's also limited in that it doesn't attempt to do too much. ... t recognizes that human beings are not angels. Members of each branch will inevitably try to expand their power and influence, and members of the other two branches should then press back, leading to an ever-shifting balance of power that prevents any one branch from becoming too influential. Unfortunately, lawmakers have become increasingly comfortable handing over their powers to unelected bureaucrats. Laws such as Dodd-Frank and Obamacare are intentionally vague, leaving presidential appointees or career 'civil servants' to fill in the blanks. ... A solution would be for lawmakers to reassert their constitutional authority to make law. ... Meanwhile, members of each branch should interpret the Constitution by attempting to discern the original meaning of the text as it was written and publicly understood at the time of ratification, a method commonly referred to as originalism."

Hey, not all Republicans are good, but the Democrats are the ones who are pushing gun control, abortion, racism, amnesty for illegals, higher taxes and spending. And now they are pushing for war too! You can't deny those are facts. Personally, I'm a supported of the Libertarians more than anything. GO RAND PAUL!

LOL

Yeah.