Mr VJP

Please note the two words of importance in what you quoted from me, "if" and "like". I never said you said it, or actually agreed with it, just made a statement regarding the possibility based on your past posts. Not pretending anything or trying to stir up anything. Lighten up on the offense and bone up on the reading comprehension. No offense meant then, or now. OK?

The closest I ever got to any type of teaching position is NRA certified firearms instructor, and I don't know Papist from Adam. If you think we are the same person, put a large amount of cash on it and I'll split it with him to prove we aren't. I'll be 60 this month and currently consider my occupation "Independently Wealthy". When asked what I do these days, my answer is simply, "Whatever I want". Now, let's get back on topic here. You guys really have a very short attention span. Another reason this society is in a death spiral and headed for doom.

Many people have said we should limit rights on other threads, as well as in the media. It's the mantra of the Left, but they try to label it as "common sense". Why you think I'm saying "do nothing" is puzzling. I'm saying what we need to do isn't a quick and simple fix. I'm sorry if you hope there is an easy way to resolve these issues, like ban all guns. Try to imagine, with an open mind, how that will only make things much worse. For example, your kids should be protected by armed security everywhere these days. Schools, theaters, churches, parks, etc. But the Left shouts that down as crazy and paranoid. Why aren't you shouting back at them that it's not? This situation has been coming for a long time. The warnings have been there for years. It's not about guns. It's about a multitude of things like: people's lack of respect for human life, low values, lack of morals, crack pot child rearing, drugged up kids (both legal and illegal), crazy child psychologists, illegal immigration, big government, buying votes, political power struggles, allowing terrorists into this land, and on and on. I don't know why people think it's a surprise our society has devolved to where it is, when we have been encouraging it's demise for decades with unadulterated permissiveness in every regard. Warnings have been preached for decades about the country winding up where it is, but those warnings were mocked and cast aside as delusional and paranoid. Well, they weren't. How do we fix it? The same way we broke it. One issue at a time. And we decide on the right path based on where it takes us. If it improves the country as a whole and enhances the safety and quality of life, we do it. If it doesn't, we don't. Political correctness needs to be the first thing done away with. It's going to take as many decades to reverse the damage as it did to do the damage. People always want instant solutions to problems that took decades to create. I'm sorry to say it doesn't work that way. Better buckle up and get ready for a long, difficult solution situation. Even when we know where we went wrong, there will be plenty of people who resist the corrections needed and will continue to demand change continue on it's mentally deranged course. The problems we are dealing with today, will get much worse before the idiots who supported them are finally silenced for good. And that will only happen when people start to demand real common sense.

I've hunted NJ for years and took a 300 lb bear a few years ago. I think NW NJ and Sussex County are the best places for bear hunting in the state. I like Stokes State Forest because I know it intimately. The Delaware Water Gap lands are also very good. These places also get fewer hunters than lands further east and closer to populated areas of the state.

I believe the Ruger American is the best value for the money. It is very accurate as well. If I were in your position I'd buy the Ruger and add my own scope. That way I could get the best scope for the type of hunting I'd do with it as well.

Nobody is responsible for your safety but you. If you think the police or the government have any duty to protect you, the SCOTUS has ruled they do not. If someone can be proven to be a real threat to people, by all means remove the threat. but due process is a very big part of a free society and I'm not willing to lessen my freedom by letting the government side step due process. I'm also not willing to give up my right to self defense to make others feel safer. Your fears do not trump my rights. From the PATRIOT POST: "Under the guise of combatting terrorism, Obama declared, “To begin with, Congress should act to make sure no one on a no-fly list is able to buy a gun. What could possibly be the argument for allowing a terrorist suspect to buy a semiautomatic weapon? ... We also need to make it harder for people to buy powerful assault weapons like the ones that were used in San Bernardino." Then he mocked, "I know there are some who reject any gun safety measures.” This is craven theatrics, but it will work on some Americans. All the public is going to hear is "no-fly list" and "guns," and then they're going to think, "Why do Republicans want to put guns in the hands of terrorists?" Mission accomplished for Obama. But there are three glaring problems with Obama’s proposed “solutions” — one practical, one political, and the other constitutional. The practical problem is that neither Syed Farook nor Tashfeen Malik (the San Bernardino terrorists) was on the no-fly list. In fact, none of the terrorists involved in Islamist terror attacks on U.S. soil have been on the no-fly list, so Obama's “solution” would not have prevented these terrorists from purchasing guns. Furthermore, legal purchases are not the only means of obtaining firearms. France has far more restrictive gun laws than the U.S., and yet the attacks in Paris still happened. There is also the fact that the government terrorist watch lists, which include the no-fly list, are riddled with errors. There seems to be neither rhyme nor reason as to how someone ends up on the no-fly list. There are more than 280,000 Americans with no recognized ties to terrorism on the watch list, including some who are on the list for no other reason than making controversial statements on social media unrelated to terrorism, or refusing to be government informants, or simply due to clerical errors. Indeed, none other than deceased Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) was denied flying privileges five times because someone with a similar name was on the no-fly list. (In this case, however, at least TSA had the distinction of stopping a man responsible for the death of an innocent woman). The constitutional issues with his “solution” are even more problematic. Obama’s denial of gun purchases by law-abiding citizens would be a violation of our Second, Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights. American citizens have a Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, and the Supreme Court has acknowledged in recent years that this is indeed an individual right. It would also violate Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures without probable cause, and Fifth Amendment protections against being deprived of God-given liberties without due process. Arbitrarily placing someone on the no-fly list and denying access to firearms would constitute a presumption of guilt by government. The placement of American citizens on these watch lists was so arbitrary and capricious that last year a federal court ruled that the federal government’s system for addressing objections by citizens placed on the no-fly list was unconstitutional, as the government would not tell those on the list why they were on it or how to get off the list. While Obama is eager to use any means to deny Second Amendment rights to American citizens, one wonders whether he would be willing to immediately fire the 72 Homeland Security employees who are currently on the no-fly list. Our illustrious federal paladins missed the fact that the San Bernardino terrorists had been wedded to their radical Islamist ideology for “some time,” and had beenplanning such an attack for a long time, even going to a local firing range just days before the attack to practice shooting. Maybe Obama’s minions missed these jihadis because they were more focused on punishing Obama’s political adversaries. After all, it was Obama’s own IRS that targeted conservatives for scrutiny, harassment and audits. And it was Obama’s Department of Homeland Security in 2009, just months after he took office, that published an internal report entitled “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment,” which warned that potential domestic terrorists included veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan, those who oppose gun control, so-called racists (as we all know, all opposition to Obama is solely because he is black), those who believe in limited government, those who oppose illegal immigration and those who revere the Constitution. But surely Obama would never use that no-fly list as a back-door method to disarm his political opponents and deny them their rights, would he? Let's ask Stephen Hayes, a writer for the conservative Weekly Standard and a Fox News contributor, who found himself on the no-fly list. Hayes notes, “The way I got off of it was, Bret Baier on 'Special Report' was hosting Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson for an interview that was to be largely about immigration. And at the end of the interview, Bret raised my case and said, ‘Mr. Secretary do you think Steve Hayes is a terrorist?'” Soon thereafter, Hayes was removed. But most Americans don't have those connections. Patrick Henry, speaking at the Virginia Ratifying Convention of the Constitution, warned us to "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel.” Thomas Jefferson concurred, declaring, “In questions of power, let us hear no more of trust in men, but rather bind them down from mischief with the chains of the Constitution." No president has ever proven more untrustworthy than Barack Obama, and we’d be fools to trust his promises of security in exchange for us giving up our constitutional rights. So thanks but no thanks. We’ll cling to our guns and religion." Anyone who believes we should allow the government to deal with this problem by limiting the freedom and rights of responsible citizens, is either a traitor, an idiot, or is extremely naive.

Americans have to be made to understand, you don't fight crime and terrorism by taking the freedom to defend yourself away from the victims. It's pretty obvious to me this desire to ban guns does not have the elimination of crime and terrorism at heart. The shootings are not what's driving gun sales. The talk about taking away your right to self defense is driving gun sales.

This Leftist gun ownership ban seems to be even worse than it's critics say it is. https://reason.com/blog/2015/12/08/which-watchlist-would-they-used-to-deny Like ObamaCare, if they pass it, you'll find out what's really in it. Only an idiot would support such a proposal.

No, we don't. We could do a lot to prevent terrorism if we did what Israel does, but none of that would ever be allowed in this bleeding heart filled land. We could also make sure victims could SHOOT BACK! But we go out of our way to make sure they can't! As far as mental cases go, a doctor can ask any law enforcement agency to get a warrant for a mental evaluation, and if the person fails it, they cannot buy a gun until a doctor says they are well. But the law gets murky with doctor/patient confidentiality. The Democrats are trying to do it the easy way by banning ALL gun ownership. They also see a great deal of advantage to their Leftist cause in doing so.

No, I said any gun ban proposed by the LEFT! Any ban they propose is not for the good of the country or individuals. I support only gun control laws that actually target criminals without infringing on responsible law abiding citizen's rights. I also believe we have enough already, and they are not being enforced. Leftists refuse to use the laws we already have, because they are most often used against the criminals they seem to cater to. Meanwhile, they love supporting more laws to only be used against responsible gun owners they don't like, who pose no threat to anyone. I hope that answers your facetious question clearly enough.

"In an unusual step, Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas voiced opposition to the Court's move. Thomas wrote, "The Court's refusal to review a decision that flouts two of our Second Amendment precedents stands in marked contrast to the Court's willingness to summarily reverse courts that disregard our other constitutional decisions." To do so, he argued, gives blessing to a lower court decision that "eviscerates many of the protections recognized in Heller and McDonald." For example, weapons in "common use" was key to the Court's previous gun rulings, and it's hard to argue that semiautomatic rifles don't fit that description, even if they do have extra-scary features like pistol grips and folding stocks that have no effect on functionality. "If a broad ban on firearms can be upheld based on conjecture that the public might feel safer (while being no safer at all), then the Second Amendment guarantees nothing," Thomas wrote. He concluded that the Seventh Circuit is guilty of "relegating the Second Amendment to a second-class right," and SCOTUS did nothing to stand for Rule of Law." Even if some Leftist bozo becomes POTUS and stacks the SCOTUS. there is no way any court could constitutionally eliminate ALL gun ownership. Even a small push to ban most weapons, would promote more violence and bloodshed than has ever been committed by firearms to date. Those who are saying they are for gun control, really aren't. They are for guns in the hands of the government being used to do great violence against legally disarmed people who disagree with that idea.

For all the fools who support this "sound good" proposal, without any clue of what's in it, try to open your learning lobe and wake the hell up! "[barack Obama] was demagogic on what he called, misleadingly, the 'no fly list,' suggesting that there is no argument for letting suspected terrorists buy guns. In truth, the terrorist-watch list that congressional Democrats want to use to restrict gun rights is much broader than the no-fly list; there is no due process for the people on it; and the people on it are in no serious sense 'suspected terrorists,' and the administration has no plans to treat them as such for purposes beyond restricting gun rights." —Ramesh Ponnuru If you support any type of gun ban proposed by the Left, you are supporting the destruction of your own freedom and are too ignorant to know it!

Until intelligent people get elected and change it, just as they are trying to do with Obamacare. Or until another 2nd Amendment case gets to the SCOTUS and overturns all of these unconstitutional gun laws. With the help of ISIS in America, it won't be long before full automatic weapons are legal for responsible American citizens to own again.

Here's the only common sense exhibited by the SCOTUS in this case: "Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia dissented, saying that lower courts have been ignoring Supreme Court precedents on Second Amendment rights." Not hearing a case does not mean the law is Constitutional.

When Muslims are doing all that they are doing, anyone who thinks some Americans aren't going to try to do something about it, is kidding themselves. I like how liberals are quick to condemn an American who wants to kill Muslims, while ignoring, or making excuses, for Muslims who are killing Americans all the time.

You're showing your low I.Q. again. #1. It's exceeds, not succeeds. #2. I.Q. does not change when one is asleep. #3. The Leftist mindset is possibly some sort of mental disorder caused by low I.Q. #4. Ad hominem attacks rather that addressing the facts presented. #5. Complete lack of understanding of the opposition to bad legislation, that will not do what it claims, while completely supporting it without a clue what harm it will do. #6. Run on sentence without any punctuation that becomes impossible to understand. You lost the bet. Pay up.

Your professed support for Democrats vs hatred of the Conservative Right and the NRA speak for themselves. Your ad hominem attacks also identify you as a low IQ Leftist Progressive, the kind that support what I described. Consider your day a huge success, if that gives you chills up your legs. You seem to be more and more perverted with each post.

True terrorists on that list will not pass a NICS check because there is plenty of real evidence in NICS to deny their gun purchase. I'm concerned about responsible Americans that are on that list by mistake and have no legal recourse to get off of it! People like you have been screaming for years about offending terrorists with allegations and suspicions of harmful intentions. You, and yours, are the ones who have made it possible for them to be in this country in the first place. The FBI has thousands of these people on the radar and is tracking them. Why the hell are they TRACKING them? If they are a threat, they should be arrested! But people like you would protest that as a violation of their rights. Meanwhile you scream for the violation of a responsible citizen's right to defend themselves from the danger people like you have put them in. YES, you sicken me!

It sickens me to reply to your posts, but this one is real easy. If the government can restrict people on some list from buying guns, they will see to it that anyone they don't want to own one is put on the list. It's that simple. When the law allows people to contest being on the list, prior to being put on it, allowing Constitutional due process, then maybe it would legal. What the dumbass Democrats want is not legal. It's tyranny. Get it? And since you have asked, I'll tell you. The Democrats are the REAL danger to America!

Hatred of politics is a very good reason to vote. Vote for those who have the country's best interest in mind and shun all who practice self serving politics. Also, someone once said, "You may not take any interest in politics, but politics is certainly taking an interest in you!". It's best to keep informed about what the politicians have in mind for you, and vote against any that you don't agree with.

I have little hope they will wake up before it's too late

It's pretty obvious Democrats are the party of gun hatred, but I've actually been chastised by hunters on this site for pointing it out. I believe they are still casting votes for them in spite of their anti gun agenda. http://www.breitbart.com/california/2015/11/25/114-house-democrats-urge-obama-sidestep-congress-gun-control/

Doing a number on the dogs, but the deer are not cooperating yet. Also, I'm going to stretch "No Shave November" into December, January and February. I like how my face stays warm!

Obama is the 1st US President to hold Chairman position of the UN Security Council. Borderline illegal, if not unethical, for a President to have so much power. His disregard for the law may be a different subject, but not a separate issue. Knowing the responsibilities of that position & the way Obama twists logic & perverts laws to suit his ideological agenda, I'd say there is substantial cause for concern. Even though the UNSC largely deals with nuclear proliferation, here the topic is small arms & the 2nd Amendment, which Obama hates & the Democrats voted to place under the mercy of the U.N. I believe the UN is, for the most part, corrupt & ineffective, but not harmless to America's sovereignty. Ya see, Obama doesn't consider himself an American as much as a citizen of the world. He believes the USA needs to be knocked off its pedestal & hopes that one day world law will trump US law. Therein lies the danger. In closing , let us all be reminded of the Fast & Furious scandal, where Obama & that rat Eric Holder transported small arms, internationally, illegally, lost track of them & then later we found out that one of our US border agents was killed by said weapon. They don't know WTH they are doing. Why doesn't the UN or NATO set up shop in Syria or a bordering country to offer security & humanitarian aid IN THE REGION. That would help with the so called refugee crisis. Isn't that what they are for, to control this type of madness on the world stage? Thinking back I now recall Kofi Annan and the Oil for Food scandal. Google that one. Yeah, the UN sucks....in my opinion.

They're yelling a lot for more of it today. Take note if you own a firearm!!! A 53-46 vote The U.N. Resolution 2117 lists 21 points dealing with firearms control, but perhaps of most interest is point number 11: "CALLS FOR MEMBER STATES TO SUPPORT WEAPONS COLLECTION and DISARMAMENT of all UN countries". By a 53-46 vote - The U.S. Senate voted against the U.N. resolution. This is that brief, glorious moment in history when everyone stands around...reloading. Now, which 46 Senators voted to destroy us? Well, let their names become known ! See below . If you vote in one of the states listed with these 46 "legis..traitors". vote against them. In a 53-46 vote, the Senate narrowly passed a measure that will stop the Veterans United Network States from entering into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty. The Statement of Purpose from the Senate Bill reads: "To uphold Second Amendment rights and prevent the United States from entering into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty." The U.N. Small Arms Treaty, which has been championed by the Obama Administration, would have effectively placed a global ban on the import and export of small firearms. The ban would have affected all private gun owners in the U.S. and had language that would have implemented an international gun registry, now get this, on all private guns and ammo. Astonishingly, 46 out of our 100 United States Senators were willing to give away our Constitutional rights to a foreign power. Here are the 46 senators who voted to give your rights to the U.N.: Baldwin (D-WI) Baucus (D-MT) Bennett (D-CO) Blumenthal (D-CT) Boxer (D-CA) Brown (D-OH) Cantwell (D-WA) Cardin (D-MD) Carper (D-DE) Casey (D-PA) Coons (D-DE) Cowan (D-MA) Durbin (D-IL) Feinstein (D-CA) Franken (D-MN) Gillibrand (D-NY) Harkin (D-IA) Hirono (D-HI) Johnson (D-SD) Kaine (D-VA) King (I-ME) Klobuchar (D-MN) Landrieu (D-LA) Leahy (D-VT) Levin (D-MI) McCaskill (D-MO) Menendez (D-NJ) Merkley (D-OR) Mikulski (D-MD) Murphy (D-CT) Murray (D-WA) Nelson (D-FL) Reed (D-RI) Reid (D-NV) Rockefeller (D-WV) Sanders (I-VT) Schatz (D-HI) Schumer (D-NY) Shaheen (D-NH) Stabenow (D-MI) Udall (D-CO) Udall (D-NM) Warner (D-VA) Warren (D-MA) Whitehouse (D-RI) Wyden (D-OR) Folks, this needs to be circulated. These DEMOCRAT Senators voted to let the UN take OUR guns. They need to lose their next election. We have been betrayed. 46 Senators Voted to Give your 2nd Amendment Constitutional Rights to the U.N. The VAST MAJORITY are DEMOCRATS! DON'T TELL ME THE DEMOCRATS ARE NOT THE PARTY OF GUN CONTROL!!