Mr VJP

OK, I'll make it short. Serve justice on those who commit crimes, up to, and including the death penalty, hold people accountable for their criminal actions, and leave everyone else alone. Make people fear the penalties and you will see real deterrence.

Having grown up when the Cold War was waging, being told to fear nuclear war, I learned to calculate the odds of my demise, and also how to increase my odds of survival in case of attack. Attacks can not be prevented by taking rights and freedoms from responsible citizens. "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 The same goes for the "No Fly List". When you are put on it after due process, you belong there and your rights can be limited. When you are put on it because the government just doesn't like you, that's a BIG problem!

I edited my prior post a little. What needs to change is enforcement of existing laws and re-directing "gun violence" efforts at those who have done violence with guns. Nobody should be persecuted in America for anything they possess. They should be prosecuted for what they do with what they possess. Is gun control really about reducing crime? Because the more guns they restrict, the more crime seems to escalate. Or is it really about control? Controlling citizens who are disarmed, which is something the founding fathers really feared, so much so they wrote the 2nd Amendment into the Constitution, along with other rights designed to keep freedom in the hands of the people, and away from evil minded, power hungry totalitarians.

Belo, I believe a lot of our freedom has vanished, and society's violence has gotten worse, precisely because we allowed it to happen in the past. There is no reason to believe the anti-gun opposition will ever stop demanding more "compromise" regarding gun control. They will always ask for more restrictions until all "gun violence" ends. What they fail to admit is places that have total gun bans prove violence, in general, always increases, because people are defenseless. Why is it that so called "common sense" legislation can never be proven to actually accomplish any reduction in crime or violence? Why would anyone support restrictions on freedom that will not benefit anyone? We are not pushing back on everything. We are pushing back on legislation that only reduces rights of responsible gun owners and leaves innocent people defenseless. Calling it "common sense" is just the anti's tactic of marketing it to a gullible populace. When we have over 10,000 gun laws already on the books, that are NOT being used to lock up violent people, there is no room for anyone to believe "common sense" has any place in the affairs of the anti gun agenda.

I filled my doe tag on Dec 11th. I was starting to believe it wasn't going to get filled. Because of antler restrictions, I let a spike and a nice 4 point, that had no brow tines, walk away. There were reports of some nice bucks in my area and a few nice 8 pointers were taken, but overall the total take is way down from recent years.

www.gunbroker.com is what will get you the most interested buyers, and the highest price.

Like I said, shoot whatever you like, makes no matter to me. Nor do your claims of your "glory days" other than I'm dubious. Short barreled rifles are very trendy. Enjoy it.

The position varies with the maker. The price you can get for the rifle also varies with the place you decide to offer it for sale, even if you don't want to sell it.

Only shoots from a supported position? You don't know much about military snipers I guess. As far as your gun choice, suit yourself. Makes no difference to me.

The serial numbers should all match to be considered all original. The stock should have a serial number on it too.

I do a lot of long range shooting. Some shots don't offer much time. Prone is always preferred, but not often possible. Sitting is the 2nd choice, then kneeling, then standing. The position you shoot from matters little regarding this point. No matter the field position used, the shorter lighter rifle is a handicap compared to a heavier, longer rifle, with the exception of short range running game shots. It's simply a matter of physics. Yes the shorter lighter rifle has it's place in the field. When carrying it long distance, up hills and in thick woods, it's much handier. I won't argue with that. But a rifle is simply a tool, and you pick the right tool for the job.

And the majority of your shots are short range I take it.

Lets put it this way, if you are the average rifleman, and you're trying to put a bullet through the heart of a deer at 200 yards, with an 18" barreled 6 pound rifle, you're going to have a much lower chance of doing it than if you were shooting a 9 pound rifle with a 24 in barrel. That reticle will be hard to steady in a short, light rifle, especially if you don't have a steady rest. How much harder? Depends on what rifleman skills you possess. I don't see any military snipers using short barreled rifles for long range work overseas. The police use them for close quarters work, but never for long range shooting. I wonder why.

I was referring to handling qualities in the field. Bench rest shooting short barrels is one thing. Try doing it from a standing, kneeling, sitting or even prone position in the field and you will find it's hard to hold that reticle steady.

That's a great compliment, even if it wasn't meant to be.

We also need to do something about American citizens who want to destroy Rule of Law, the US Constitution and the country as we know it today.

Condition is everything as far as value goes. The Winchester M1 Carbines are very much in demand by collectors. It is worth at least $1000 and maybe as much as $2000 if it is all original. But even with a replacement Winchester stock, it's not all original.

One thing nobody seems to consider when discussing shorter barrels is long range shooting. If you are shooting at deer 100 yards or more most of the time, whippy rifles are a handicap. The shorter, lighter rifles are harder to shoot accurately at longer ranges. If you'll be using it at short ranges in thick woods most of the time, the handy factor is a plus. But if your shooting across bean fields, the velocity loss isn't the main concern.

What about the 10,000 gun control laws that already exist? Why do we have any "gun violence" at all with so many laws? Why are we not prosecuting criminals that violate these laws? Why would anyone believe we only have 10,000 gun laws so we need more? That's what is embarrassing. What people don't seem to understand is, it has become very obvious to analytical minds, the gun control agenda is not designed to control crime. It has become obvious it's main purpose is disarmament in order to foster government control. It's goal is to ban as many gun owners as possible along with dissent and resistance. Every single proposal being floated today has very dark effects on personal freedom and liberty. That is why people object to their passage. Not to mention, everyone admits none of these proposals will have any positive effect on the current situation. They will have a huge negative effect on individual self defense though. Does that sound like good legislation? People who object don't believe it's good legislation. Bad gun laws are bad for the country. Will they help control the violence problem? No. Will they help the folks who want big government, full control, defenseless subjects and criminal penalties if you resist? Absolutely!

Maybe true when fired from a stable platform like a bench rest, but not true when fired off hand at a deer in the field. Shorter rifles, and light rifles, are much harder to hold steady when standing, kneeling, sitting, or even when prone.

I let a doe walk on the opener even though I have a doe permit. I'd take one now if I get the chance though. There are some nice bucks around my place. People keep reporting seeing them. But they are staying in areas where they will not get shot. They're smart enough to know where they're safe after a few days.

Nah, 10% at best.

Be advised, NJ is shotgun only (muzzle loader is legal during gun season too) and a rifled 12 gauge is the way to go.

I think 22" is short enough for a barrel. I just get them in a thin contour. Weight savings and handling are usually the objective with a short barrel. But less velocity and more muzzle blast are the costs. I like my Kimber Montana in 7mm-08 and I also use a Leupold Compact 3-9x33 scope.

A friend of mine owns a deer butchering shop in 4P. Normally they will do about 250 deer during the season. This year he expects to be about 50 fewer at season's end, and most of that number will be doe. That covers all hunting seasons for deer BTW.