Mr VJP

Second Amendment: The Gunwalker Chronicles The growing cesspool of bad actors and actions oozing out of "Operation Fast and Furious" and its progeny -- such as "Project Gunrunner," the unintentionally apt name assigned by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) to its Southwest Border Initiative to interdict gun smuggling to Mexico -- appears to be growing ever further. Now, in addition to "Gunwalker" -- Gunrunner's derisive pseudonym based on the 2,000 illegal weapons that "walked" out of sight under full supervision of ATF and the Department of Justice (DOJ) U.S. Attorney's Office in Arizona -- ATF and DOJ are apparently busy teeing up more vignettes of buffoonery. First, there's "Grenade-walker" -- that's right, "grenade," as in 500 or so of them. That's how many Mexican authorities estimate could have been made from components in the possession of Jean Baptiste Kingery, whom they just arrested. Oh yeah: ATF also arrested Kingery, but that was more than a year ago and ATF released him without any charges, notwithstanding the fact he confessed to operating an explosives factory and making devices from U.S. supplies for drug cartels. But hey, what are a few hundred grenades among friends? Then there's "Gunwalker, Part Deux." Incredibly, the same scenario that played out in Gunwalker is reportedly playing out in Indiana via gangs. This leads us to ask how these incidents could possibly be viewed as independent, isolated events. That is, how could either occur singly -- let alone together -- without full Justice Department knowledge and sanction?

The .280 Rem is a great round. It will do well on deer and Elk size animals. It offers some advantages over the .270, as well as the .30-06. It will approach 7mm Mag velocity when handloaded to max levels. You can't go wrong with a .280 Rem roud.

It's different. That does not mean it's better. What has been changed that makes it better?

Ny law says a non-resident of NY can not even be in possession of a handgun anywhere in the state. You will be arrested and jailed if you are even caught with a hangun in your car while traveling to your place, or stowed away in your camp. This is a NY law that should be vigorously challenged, but only the residents of NY have the power to get it over turned, and most don't seem to care because it doesn't affect them. Personally, I feel if you allow your state's law to infringe on the rights of any law abiding gun owner, you are helping the anti-gun side of the gun rights issue. Most NY resident gun owners say they don't support this law, but I don't see any activity with regard to abolishing it either.

I've fired Marlins in .444 as well as .45-70 and find them to be quite unpleasant to shoot. I think a Marlin in .35 Remington will suit your needs better. Range and trajectory are about the same as a .45-70, and the knock down power is surprising. Ammo is cheaper too, unless you want to use the Buffalo Bore stuff, or the new Leverevolution ammo, which I believe is not needed for deer and bear hunting. I love my Marlin 336 in .35 Rem.

If you own a Mossberg 835 and it has a synthetic stock, you can add weight inside the butt stock to dampen recoil. It works real well. I had a jar full of pennies that I didn't want to deal with. I loaded the butt stock with them and the recoil dropped dramatically. I thought I'd try that before loading it with lead birdshot. That would've cost more and may have been too heavy. I find the recoil to be about the same as a 500 with 2 3/4" high brass shells in it now. Since I use a sling and carry it for turkey and goose most often, the extra weight isn't lugged around very much.

The 835 has a back bored barrel, which a 500 doesn't have, which helps with patterning because it causes less pellet deformation. It also reduces recoil, as do those holes in the barrel, called porting. Those are there to reduce recoil and muzzle jump on firing. They don't do anything to reduce the heat of the barrel.

Question: At my local sporting goods store I see a variety of commercial deer foods for sale. Are they legal to sell? Answer: Although feeding wild deer is illegal at any time, commercial deer feed can be used for domestic animals. Therefore, it is still legal for sale. The DEC in any state has no authority to restrict the sale of any commercial product that is not illegal. They only have the power to control how it is used. It is not illegal to sell it in NY or any other state.

My lifetime license came on Saturday. What is this credit card thing you all speak of? I've never gotten anything like that.

Many years ago hunting bear in NJ became illegal. About 7 years ago, the season was opened again after too many bears caused a lot of trouble. But the anti's got to the state EPA (who the DEC works for) and a jerk of a governor who wanted votes more than conservation. Bear hunting became illegal again, when it was needed more than ever. Hunters and farmers in NJ fought that fight for 5 years. I'm proud to say I was very active in that fight, and for my efforts, was rewarded with a nice bear in 2010. The fight is still going on too, as the anti's are still trying to have bear hunting stopped in NJ. If it is a law made only as a political decision, fight it! Hunting can be abolished practically over night, if we aren't watching for signs it's coming.

http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?id=7025

'Flash Mobs' Have Racial Element Both Here and in UK If you're unaware of the epidemic of black-against-white violence that's plaguing cities in the U.S. and beyond, you're not alone. In the past few years, black "flash mobs" have attacked innocent white victims apparently based solely on race -- often inflicting serious or even deadly injury. Yet, instead of reporting the stories fully, most in the Leftmedia have raced to cover up the perpetrators' race. As John Bennett writes in the American Thinker, "The hateful murders of Matthew Shepard, who was gay, and James Byrd, Jr., who was black, were memorialized with national legislation. When similar crimes are committed by blacks against whites, they are greeted with ignominious silence." For those brave enough to say something, the accusation of "race-baiting" awaits. "Presumably, it would not be considered race-baiting if the races were reversed," Bennett writes of this double standard. Just last week in Wisconsin, black-against-white flash-mob violence at the state fair led to 11 injuries and 31 arrests. In Philadelphia, mob violence led Mayor Michael Nutter -- himself black -- to tell black youths, "You've damaged yourself, you've damaged another person, you've damaged your peers and, quite honestly, you've damaged your own race. Parents who neglect their children, who don't know where they are, who don't know what they're doing, who don't know who they're hanging out with, you're going to find yourself spending some quality time with your kids in jail." Good for the mayor. And over in London, a few brave souls have stated the obvious: that the majority of the rioters are black. We don't think it's coincidence that many of the cities where flash-mob violence has occurred -- Detroit, Chicago, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, New York -- have for decades been run by leftists. Given the non-consequences faced by perpetrators in the now-famous Black Panther voter intimidation case (thank you, Obama Justice Department), flash mobs probably know there will be no repercussions for acts of violence. What there will be, though, is protection for the perpetrators behind a media too steeped in politically correct hogwash to report the truth.

He can get a hunting license for a bow and arrow, but I don't know about an airgun. That's one of the problems with gun laws today. You need a lawyer to answer just about any gun question.

I'm really surprised nobody has said they would fight the damn law and get it repealed. I for one, would not accept such a violation on my chosen lifestyle. Just because something becomes illegal, doesn't mean it has to stay that way. Doesn't anyone remember prohibition? People don't have to accept everything that is forced upon them. If something doesn't sit well with you, FIGHT IT! If I can't spend my time hunting, I'll spend it fighting the law against it!

Later http://patriotpost.us/opinion/paul-greenberg/2011/08/04/sales-department-barack-obama-manager/

http://patriotpost.us/alexander/2011/08/04/the-next-american-revolution/ We have an obligation to secure Liberty for our posterity, and in the words of John Adams, "Our obligations to our country never cease but with our lives."

Charley Reese's final column for the Orlando Sentinel... He has been a journalist for 49 years. He is retiring and this is HIS LAST COLUMN. Be sure to read the Tax List at the end. This is about as clear and easy to understand as it can be. The article below is completely neutral, neither anti-republican or democrat. Charlie Reese, a retired reporter for the Orlando Sentinel, has hit the nail directly on the head, defining clearly who it is that in the final analysis must assume responsibility for the judgments made that impact each one of us every day. It's a short but good read. Worth the time. Worth remembering! 545 vs. 300,000,000 People -By Charlie Reese Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them. Have you ever wondered, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, WHY do we have deficits? Have you ever wondered, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, WHY do we have inflation and high taxes? You and I don't propose a federal budget. The President does. You and I don't have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does. You and I don't write the tax code, Congress does. You and I don't set fiscal policy, Congress does. You and I don't control monetary policy, the Federal Reserve Bank does. One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one President, and nine Supreme Court justices equates to 545 human beings out of the 300 million are directly, legally, morally, and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country. I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered, but private, central bank. I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason. They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman, or a President to do one cotton-picking thing. I don't care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it. No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator's responsibility to determine how he votes. Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party. What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall. No normal human being would have the gall of a Speaker, who stood up and criticized the President for creating deficits. The President can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it. The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and approving appropriations and taxes. Who is the speaker of the House now? He is the leader of the majority party. He and fellow House members, not the President, can approve any budget they want. If the President vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto if they agree to. It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million cannot replace 545 people who stand convicted -- by present facts -- of incompetence and irresponsibility. I can't think of a single domestic problem that is not traceable directly to those 545 people. When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise the power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist. If the tax code is unfair, it's because they want it unfair. If the budget is in the red, it's because they want it in the red. If the Army & Marines are in Iraq and Afghanistan it's because they want them in Iraq and Afghanistan ... If they do not receive social security but are on an elite retirement plan not available to the people, it's because they want it that way. There are no insoluble government problems. Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take this power. Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exists disembodied mystical forces like "the economy," "inflation," or "politics" that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do. Those 545 people, and they alone, are responsible. They, and they alone, have the power. They, and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses. Provided the voters have the gumption to manage their own employees... We should vote all of them out of office and clean up their mess! Charlie Reese is a former columnist of the Orlando Sentinel Newspaper. What you do with this article now that you have read it... is up to you. This might be funny if it weren't so true. Be sure to read all the way to the end: Tax his land, Tax his bed, Tax the table, At which he's fed. Tax his tractor, Tax his mule, Teach him taxes Are the rule. Tax his work, Tax his pay, He works for peanuts anyway! Tax his cow, Tax his goat, Tax his pants, Tax his coat. Tax his ties, Tax his shirt, Tax his work, Tax his dirt. Tax his tobacco, Tax his drink, Tax him if he Tries to think. Tax his cigars, Tax his beers, If he cries Tax his tears. Tax his car, Tax his gas, Find other ways To tax his ass. Tax all he has Then let him know That you won't be done Till he has no dough. When he screams and hollers; Then tax him some more, Tax him till He's good and sore. Then tax his coffin, Tax his grave, Tax the sod in Which he's laid... Put these words Upon his tomb, 'Taxes drove me to my doom...' When he's gone, Do not relax, Its time to apply The inheritance tax. Accounts Receivable Tax Building Permit Tax CDL license Tax Cigarette Tax Corporate Income Tax Dog License Tax Excise Taxes Federal Income Tax Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA) Fishing License Tax Food License Tax Fuel Permit Tax Gasoline Tax (currently 44.75 cents per gallon) Gross Receipts Tax Hunting License Tax Inheritance Tax Inventory Tax IRS Interest Charges IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax) Liquor Tax Luxury Taxes Marriage License Tax Medicare Tax Personal Property Tax Property Tax Real Estate Tax Service Charge Tax Social Security Tax Road Usage Tax Recreational Vehicle Tax Sales Tax School Tax State Income Tax State Unemployment Tax (SUTA) Telephone Federal Excise Tax Telephone Federal Universal Service Fee Tax Telephone Federal, State and Local Surcharge Taxes Telephone Minimum Usage Surcharge Tax Telephone Recurring and Nonrecurring Charges Tax Telephone State and Local Tax Telephone Usage Charge Tax Utility Taxes Vehicle License Registration Tax Vehicle Sales Tax Watercraft Registration Tax Well Permit Tax Workers Compensation Tax STILL THINK THIS IS FUNNY? Not one of these taxes existed 100 years ago, & our nation was the most prosperous in the world. We had absolutely no national debt, had the largest middle class in the world, and Mom, if agreed, stayed home to raise the kids. What in the heck happened? Can you spell 'politicians?'

"It is not tea party people who are the 'terrorists.' A terrorist seeks to destroy. Who is the real destroyer in the debt-ceiling debate? Who wants to continue spending money we don't have, borrowing it from nations like China that would be happy to destroy us if our politicians don't do it first? Tea party people simply want to make their government accountable again and for this they are called 'terrorists'?" --columnist Cal Thomas http://image.patriotpost.us/2011-08-05-digest-cartoon-2.jpg[/img]

"[T]he projections for this and that for 2030, 2050, 2080 are all irrelevant. We have half-a-decade to turn this around. If we really intend (as is apparently foreseen by our bipartisan saviors) to add $7-10 trillion to the debt by 2020, then America is over -- because clearly there is no intention ever to repay that money, and the world will make its dispositions accordingly. ... The Democrats want to plunge over the cliff at full throttle. Too many Republicans think it will be fine as long as we go over the edge in third gear." --columnist Mark Steyn

Government & Politics The Unsinkable U.S.? http://image.patriotpost.us/2011-08-05-digest.jpg[/img] Congress passed and the president signed the increase in the debt ceiling Tuesday, and that, as Leftmedia outlets rejoiced, ended the "crisis" just hours before the default deadline. On the other hand, the Left is grousing that the Tea Party got everything it wanted. But did the deal really end the crisis? Hardly. World markets plummeted in its wake -- the Dow fell 512 points Thursday, erasing all gains from 2011, evoking this response from the White House: "Markets go up and down." Furthermore, credit rating agencies continued to warn of a looming downgrade of the nation's AAA rating. And did the Tea Party come out with everything it wanted? Not a chance. On the contrary, the ship is still sinking. The Tea Party and the markets know that, despite all the back-patting in Washington. The $2.4 trillion debt ceiling increase is the biggest ever. In fact, total U.S. debt didn't reach $2.4 trillion until 1987. Immediately on Tuesday, the Treasury borrowed another $239 billion -- the largest one-day debt binge in history -- bringing total federal debt to $14.532 trillion, or just over 100 percent of our gross domestic product. Debt has not exceeded GDP since 1947 -- immediately after World War II -- and 30 years ago it was just 32.5 percent of GDP. Could there be a connection between the market collapse and this debt "milestone"? Democrats foisted upon the nation the biggest Keynesian spending bonanza in history, and the result has been almost no GDP growth, headline unemployment exceeding 9 percent (despite 117,000 new jobs in July), decreased consumer spending, inflation, debt as far as our great-grandchildren can see and a possible national credit rating downgrade. On Aug. 3, 2010, Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner penned an op-ed for The New York Times titled "Welcome to the Recovery." That rings awfully hollow now. In fact, many think that we're headed for a double-dip recession. As for Barack Obama, later this month, he will embark on a three-day bus tour of the Midwest that he's styling as a "listening tour" focused on jobs. That's after his 50th birthday bash this week, which featured dinner at $35,800 a plate. In any case, it's become clear in recent weeks that the American people have lost confidence in Obama's policies and are tuning him out. Not to worry, though. Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) says, "[W]e're going to focus on what we know is the number one priority on Americans' minds right now -- that is creating jobs and continuing to get this economy turned around." Um, "continuing"? As for debt "deal" specifics, the House passed the increase 269-161, despite opposition from many Democrats and Tea Party Republicans. The Senate followed suit 74-26. Congress then quickly left for August recess. Barack Obama also signed the increase Tuesday saying the deal was "an important first step for ensuring that, as a nation, we live within our means." He even said it with a straight face. On the contrary, "living within our means" doesn't actually seem to be part of the plan. The debt ceiling was immediately increased by $400 billion. By the end of September, another $500 billion increase is subject to a congressional vote of "disapproval," and Obama can veto that measure. After that, a "blue ribbon" joint committee of Congress (six members from each chamber, divided equally between Democrats and Republicans) will meet to recommend another $1.5 trillion in deficit reduction by Nov. 23, which Congress must take up by Dec. 23, in exchange for that much more in debt. If the committee or Congress fails, which is possible, if not probable, the debt ceiling will increase by $1.2 trillion anyway, with across-the-board cuts -- including to ObamaCare -- equal to that amount kicking in automatically. Adding insult to injury, every spending cut is over 10 years, while every debt increase is immediate. So even with the deal, the forecast for the next decade is still trillions more in debt. As Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK), who voted against the bill, put it, "It eliminates no program, consolidates no duplicative programs, cuts no tax earmarks and reforms no entitlement program. The specter of default or a credit downgrade will still hang over our economy after this deal becomes law." Is that what the Tea Party wanted? None of that is to say the deal is the worst possible outcome. In fact, with no tax-rate increases and some spending cuts, despite Democratic control of the White House and Senate, it's quite the opposite. Retaking those two should be paramount in 2012 to work peacefully toward restoration of constitutional Rule of Law. In the meantime, the Tea Party should continue fighting for everything it can win.

Second Amendment: Gun-Grabbers International The United States is almost unique among nations in that its citizenry generally enjoys the right to keep and bear arms -- the palladium of all liberties. That's a sore subject among international statists, and the United Nations has been working on a treaty designed to limit armaments of all sorts in order to assume greater control of otherwise sovereign nations. If you look at the document through the prism of American sovereignty, it's clear the UN's Arms Trade Treaty, which has the support of Barack Obama, has a number of drawbacks (The Heritage Foundation has them outlined. Because of that, it also now has a bipartisan group of 57 senators (45 Republicans along with a dozen Democrats) opposed to it in its present form -- in particular, its "wide-ranging and unrealistic scope." It also violates the Second Amendment. But since when has the UN cared about our Constitution? For that matter, when was the last time Democrats cared about our Constitution? More important, that group of 57 senators -- one for each state, if you count like Barack Obama -- is more than enough to deny adoption of the Arms Trade Treaty unless significant changes are made in the final product, which is due in 2012. With that sort of political timing, the chances of the Arms Trade Treaty being enacted are between slim and none. Just keep a wary eye on the executive branch, because with Obama as a proponent, other avenues are possible.

But you can take every opportunity to point out the error of it's direction and the fact that it is on a direct course to hell in a handbasket. If people resent that or get offended, just laugh at them, as if they said anything else equally stupid.

Money for nothing is right. What exactly does the $200 pay for? Permits are only supposed to cost what is needed to cover the expense of issuing one. $200 is a lot to do a little paperwork. You know these costs are not going to go down, but did you know they can be raised to any amount, at any time, without any voter or gun owner approval? In reality, pistol owners are being fined every year for being pistol owners. That means they are seen as law breakers by the elected officials. It's not like other permits for building or using a park either. As a law abiding adult, you have a RIGHT to own that pistol. No permit is required unless pistol owners allow it to become a requirement. Seemed like a common sense law when it started though, didn't it? Now would be a good time to start a grass roots protest movement and threaten to sue if the fee isn't drastically lowered right now. But I dont expect that will happen. The anti's are winning because gun owners are allowing them to win.

For those of you who don't think these political issues have anything to do with hunting, consider this, how long after the people allow the government to trash the Constitution do you think it will be before they decide to make gun ownership and hunting, for all but the powerful and politically connected, impossible? Do some research on European countries and what they did after WWII, as far as gun ownership and hunting goes, and maybe you'll see a parallel to what is happening in the US today. The only thing slowing them down is the US Constitution, the 2nd Amendment and those of us who refuse to allow them to ignore it. Many gun owners and hunters refuse to extrapolate into the future, when their rights are slowly and marginally eroded. Giving up any amount of your rights, is an invitation for the government to come back for more. Anyone out there really think hunting is not already targeted for extermination in America? The government's policy is to do it little by little, like plucking one feather from a bird each day. The bird will not protest or worry about it too much, until one day it realizes it cannot fly. By then of course, as in the game of chess, it is check mate. The government is not your friend and vigilance is the price of freedom. Be thankful there are a lot of us who are wide awake. Don't believe and don't fight back if you want, but don't criticize those of us who refuse to allow it to happen.

WZ's last post is real endorsement for the 1st Amendment if I ever heard one. Are NY hunters not part of the country as a whole, or do they just not care about the Fedeal Government and it's impact on their freedoms? The uneducated, brainwashed and uninformed have been calling the aware, the "lunatic fringe", since before Paul Revere. Eventually their offspring come to see that fringe is who they have to thank for their freedoms. One can make a very good case that Progressive Liberalism is today's lunatic fringe much more intelligently than a case can be made against conservatism. If you really think you have a case to prove lunacy in a post, challenge the post and it's content with one that intelligently discusses it. If you can not do that, and just insult the person who posted it, you are being a low life asking others to side with you based on nothing but your belief that you are superior in your intellect and status. Maybe you are. But unless you can verbalize why that is so, I doubt it. I prefer to keep debates on the high road. I don't wish to wallow in the mud with anyone, but won't allow anyone to throw me into it without a fight either. If you can refrain from insults on this forum, I can refrain from them also. If not, you get what we have here.