Mr VJP

Known as a punt gun and used during the era of market gunning for waterfowl, this gun could shoot 1 pound of shot with 1 pull of the trigger. Many ducks could be bagged with one shot if you could "get your ducks in a row". BTW, it was secured to the boat itself and not fired from the shoulder. The recoil would push the entire boat backwards in the water for many yards after the shot.

No so called "outlaw" MC club is actually legally considered a criminal organization. The members must be charged with criminal offenses individually to consider them outlaws. I'm sure they have a lawyer on retainer who's also a member of the MC club. If he's never commited a crime, which would get him disbarred too, he's not an outlaw. They may be considered criminal organizations by some people, but are not legally outlawed by law. If they were, they wouldn't exist out in the open like most do, including the Hell's Angels. But that's not the point of the story at all. Going back to the OP, if they declare the NRA a terrorist organization, which they want to do, all of the guns owned by the members will have to be turned in, unless you want to quit the NRA? Sounds like the NRA has been doing too good a job at protecting 2nd Amendment rights. Any "Social" club that exists could be considered a "terrorist" group and have their rights erased. But I doubt this administration has the Black Panthers, or the Black Lives Matter group on their anti gun radar at this time. You cannot allow the government to pick and choose what INDIVIDUAL can own firearms. It has to be done equally under the law with legal criteria, like a felony conviction, used to decide.

This guy's guns were all legally owned and registered. I doubt members of the Bloods gang are legally owned, and if they are, I doubt they are being confiscated. The point is, all the government has to do is declare your membership in an organization "unsavory" and they can take your 2nd Amendment rights. Where does this stop? NRA members? Christians? Tea Party members? Allowing the government to decide who can and cannot own firearms based on ideology, rather than criminal history, is giving them way too much power to control who owns guns. The more citizens are willing to allow the government to grant them permission, the more ways the government will find to deny it.

They are not properly trained to fight, nor do they have the experience or qualified personnel. But apparently, that doesn't matter to this administration.

The relationship between the police and motorcycle clubs isn’t exactly cordial. We’ve seen what can result from that tension in Waco recently, and the justice system is still trying to figure out what the heck happened. Things aren’t a whole lot better in the Empire State. That’s where the Pagans Motorcycle Club of Suffolk County, Long Island operates. People who want to own a handgun in the state of New York are required to have a permit to purchase and possess the gun (one permit for each specific firearm) and as a result the police know exactly who has (legally owned) heaters. According to reports, that enabled local Suffolk County cops to confiscate the firearms of one motorcycle club member without any apparent legal justification . . . From MPP: On Thursday October 22nd, the SCPD contacted a member of the Pagans MC and informed him that his legal permit issued by Suffolk County was under review because of his alleged membership in the Pagans MC. The SCPD requested that he come down to the station for an interview and bring all 10 of his legally purchased and registered handguns. The member, in good faith, says he went down to the station with his legal handguns in order to be interviewed. This member has absolutely no criminal record and he had been legally issued a permit. He thought he could clear it up, he says. But the SCPD had no intention of making an evaluation based on the interview. It is clear that the decision to confiscate this man’s legal handguns was made before he ever arrived. The member was given no real choice. He was told he could give up being a Pagan and keep his permit and guns. Police told him that it is illegal to own a gun in New York as a member of an outlaw motorcycle club like the Pagans. Police said there was recent Supreme Court precedent that confirmed the law. The idea that someone could have their constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms violated due to his association with a certain group the police deem “unsavory” is more than a little unsettling. I’m sure that no one would argue that getting guns out of the hands of members of a street gang such as the Bloods would be a good idea. But when that definition begins to expand to include groups that the cops simply don’t like, well, you can see where this might be heading. If the cops suddenly consider the NRA a terrorist organization (as the NY Daily News desperately wants) then under this same logic they could begin confiscating the firearms of every NRA member in their jurisdiction. Where does it stop?

I would expect the EPA to call in the DEA or FBI to fight those fights.

Smashing the gun control (human control) argument is so easy that even a Columbia journalism major could do it, if they some how possessed the courage to try. What follows is a simple three-step process addressing the argument for civilian disarmament. All so-called "gun control" regulations exempt the government, or more aptly, employees of the state. Gun control laws also by definition exempt criminals and those with criminal intent. A criminal is a person prone to or engaged in "unlawful activity". Therefore, Malum Prohibitum laws concerning firearms will not prevent a criminal from possessing or using a gun in the commission of a crime. A violation of an existing Malum Prohibitum statute is merely an additional charge to add to the charges of Murder, Attempted Murder, Aggravated Assault, etc. If the stated purpose of the gun control law is to "save lives" we can clearly see that criminal behavior will not be affected as they have already made a conscious decision to violate the law. To state that a creature, who is willing to violate Malum In Se through the act of murder, robbery, rape, etc., will be dissuaded from using a firearm during the aforementioned acts by a new Malum Prohibitum statute is the height of childish naiveté and blind, emotionally driven foolishness. Considering the previous facts, supposed gun control laws have only one true legitimate target; the civilian. Only law-abiding citizens are genuinely effected by further restrictions. Ergo, gun control is tantamount civilian or citizen disarmament, it cannot and does not affect anyone else. 3 Steps #1 Self-Defense Ask you subject whether or not a man or a woman (any human being) has a legitimate right to self-defense. Does a person posses the legal right to defend themselves against unlawful attack? If the person you are speaking to hesitates and says anything but "yes", your conversation is over. Should the subject say "yes, but..." then they do not believe it. They are a slave to the state and cannot be saved. You are finished with them, move on with your life. #2 The Police Ask the subject if it is the responsibility of the state, the police, to protect you (the people) from criminal attacks. Do you believe that the police are required to protect you by law? Unless they have been previously educated, your subject may naively respond to the effect that yes, the police must protect you, it is the law. It is in fact NOT the law that the state, the police, protect individual citizens from attack or harm. In Warren vs. District of Columbia the court found that the D.C. police "owe no specific duty" to protect individuals from criminal harm. Therefore the District was held harmless. Warren was a woman who, along with her two female roommates, was brutalized horribly after the D.C. police were called but never arrived to help. In a more recent case, the Manhattan Supreme Court ruled that the city of New York could not be sued after NYPD officers failed to stop a man from being brutally stabbed on a subway, even though the officers were present when the attack occurred. The court again found that the police had "no special duty" to protect citizens as individuals. #3 Tools Arriving safely at this point with our subject, we will reinforce the fact that self-defense is a human right and that the state does not have a legal duty to protect individual citizens from criminal harm. Now it is time to discuss the tools. This step will include a short battery of questions. If someone is trying to kill you or a loved one, is it legal to use a hammer as a tool to stop them? ...is it legal to use a knife to stop them? ...a gun to stop them? ...a coffee pot to stop them? If the answer to the battery of question is yes, you can continue with a final two part question. Does the tool used for self-defense have any bearing on whether or not the defense was justified? Or, are the person's actions what justifies self-defense, not the object used? In Conclusion Having come to the conclusion of the discussion, your subject should agree that every human has a natural right to self-defense. They understand that the government/police have no duty to protect you as an individual (and in reality cannot). Finally, it is not the object that determines what is and is not justifiable self-defense but the actions of the person. With the common ground established between you and a person that possesses the capacity for rational thought, you are now able to pose what should be a rhetorical question. What is the purpose of gun control laws, other than to hinder the law abiding and offer an imaginary "feel good" solution to a human behavior problem? Drop the microphone and walk off stage. --Paul Markel Paul Markel is the author of numerous books; to include "Faith and the Patriot", "The Patriot Fire Team" and "Student of the Gun, a beginner once, a student for life". Go to Student of the Gun Gear or Amazon.com for more information.

Ed Feulner: "Open the Books found that the [EPA] has spent millions of dollars over the last decade on guns, ammo, body armor, camouflage equipment, unmanned aircraft, amphibious assault ships, radar and night-vision gear and other military-style weaponry and surveillance activities. ... Among the EPA’s purchases: $1.4 million for 'guns up to 300mm.' $380,000 for 'ammunition.' $210,000 for 'camouflage and other deceptive equipment.' $208,000 for 'radar and night-vision equipment.' $31,000 for 'armament training devices.' The list goes on. It’s filled with the kind of equipment you’d expect to be purchased by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, not an agency ostensibly designed to protect the environment. But as it turns out, armed, commando-style raids by the EPA are not unheard of. One such raid occurred in 2013, in a small Alaskan town where armed agents in full body armor reportedly confronted local miners accused of polluting local waters. Perhaps the agency is gearing up for more operations like that one? If so, the EPA wouldn’t be all that unique. According to the Justice Department, there are now 40 federal agencies with more than 100,000 officers authorized to carry guns and make arrests. They include the National Park Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Bureau of Land Management, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The EPA audit underscores the need for serious budget cuts at the agency."

Best choice for President as far as I'm concerned

Carolyn Maloney, Democrat from New York, has a plan. Maloney introduced a bill, back in May of this year: “The Firearm Risk Protection Act.” If this bill were to become law, a person would be required to have liability insurance to purchase a gun or face a $10,000.00 fine. The cost of that insurance would, of course, add to the overall cost of the firearm. But, then, the salient point of Maloney’s bill is to make gun ownership such an onerous, expensive proposition that the American public would be dissuaded from making the purchase of a gun in the first place. But, suppose a person is willing to tighten his or her belt and expend the money. What, then? And; The NY Times has pulled out all the stops with the latest incident in Oregon through a series of articles designed to affect the emotions – not the intellect – of its readers. The October 4, 2015 Sunday edition of the newspaper is replete with articles – news accounts and editorials – by such ostensible “luminaries” as Frank Bruni and Nicholas Kristoff, who feel obliged or, perhaps, were asked, to weigh in. What the NY Times news reports and commentary boils down to is this: since it is difficult if not impossible to ascertain with any degree of certainty who will become a “mass murderer,” the better course of action is to remove firearms from the American citizenry in totality, and in double-quick time.” What is the rationale for this? Click on the link to read all of the article http://arbalestquarrel.com/the-second-amendment-straight-in-the-crosshairs/

So, you fancy yourself a psychologist too? You're a clueless lemming. There's more to this than you know. Tracking, mandatory reporting and finesIn addition to the tax, the measure would order the Attorney General to establish a tamper-proof passive identification capability for firearms to allow them to be picked up by a mobile or fixed reading device. Those selling guns without such a feature could risk a $1,000 fine. Read on fool. http://www.guns.com/2015/10/27/lawmaker-seeks-100-federal-tax-passive-tracking-on-each-new-gun-sold/?utm_campaign=trueAnthem:+Trending+Content&utm_content=562f94fc04d3011400e7bfe9&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=facebook

So, you're saying you're OK with the government taking more of your money and spending it on things they usually don't effectively fix? I can't think of much the government spends money on that would be considered the best way to fix something. Besides, why burden only firearms purchasers with the cost of mental healthcare when those folks cause crimes in many areas, not just shootings. I don't know where you live, but there are still plenty of local gun stores in many areas of NY state. The Big Box stores are where novices buy their firearms. Seattle is the proof these laws do not have the desired effect.

Bill Whittle has put out a number of pro gun videos and has never been proven wrong as far as I know. The man has the facts and is capable of explaining them in very simple language, which is required for simpletons to grasp. Google his name and watch more of his stuff. You'll love it. He does an excellent job of debunking all of the anti gun BS the media promotes. Trouble is, he is only one man without much exposure. The anti gun mass media tramples his voice in the wilderness, with constant air wave saturation of their lies. In America, if you tell a lie often enough, people will believe it. BTW, I find it interesting you assume there are flaws in Bill's message. The flaws are in the anti's message. Bill's just good at pointing them out.

We do. Sales tax, registration, licensing fees, and insurance are all state imposed taxes required to drive a car. But it wasn't the car that did it, it was the person behind the wheel. Unlike murderers who use firearms, this driver is being blamed for what she did. BTW, a funny thing happened in the press after this car attack happened. An Oklahoma newspaper actually reported this incident as a shooting that killed 4 and wounded 30 more. Talk about an agenda. They never bothered to wait for the facts before they went to press.

We?? Who's we? I certainly didn't cheer. I saw it as another unconstitutional tax used by an ever expanding, abusive, big government nanny state. I agree the government uses "sin taxes" to control people. The people need to wise up and reject that tactic if they want to be united against government abuse. But like you say, the people have been successfully divided by prior government strategies and are being divided even more every day. People need to realize that strategy benefits the government, not the people. But I have little hope that reality will ever dawn on most of the "me" generation, or the proponents of big government. Yeah, the majority of American's supported the attack on tobacco. But that should be considered an indication to intelligent voters how many stupid voters are out there.

Pheasant hunters do those things. It doesn't hinder their bird hunting. I can't believe you expect them to even know you're there if you don't let them know you're there. It's up to you to make them aware of your presence some how. Maybe if they knew you were bowhunting nearby, they would take that into consideration. I always do when I'm bird hunting and I see a bowhunter. But many wait until I'm within 10 yards and then get upset. That's not smart.

I guess specifics is too much to expect. They don't allow the 2nd Amendment to get repealed by executive, or legal fiat. How's that a bad thing? You mean they don't stop every little bad gun law that gets passed on a state or local level? Maybe if there were 50 million members instead of 5 million, they could.

Are the bucks where you are when there are pheasant hunters in the field? No? Maybe you should hunt where they are then. The bucks are there when the pheasant hunters are there? Then I don't get your complaint.

Translated, "I don't care." That's exactly what you said. That's how NY gets most of the bad gun laws it has. If it doesn't affect someone, they don't care. If you can't handle a simple question designed to make you think a little, or clarify your opinion, you're better off leaving.

40 yards off the field edge is nothing. The birds fly out of the fields and into the woods. The hunters are going to go after them. When I bow hunt where pheasant hunters will be, I hunt where the deer go when the hunters show up. You are simply bow hunting in the wrong place friend.

Not to worry though. Even in NY state, this law will never pass. It would also put a lot of gun dealers out of business and kill a lot of jobs too.

So, you are OK with proposed laws like this and don't feel you should protest their implementation?

They're copying legislation recently passed in Seattle. Nobody buys guns there anymore and every gun shop in town moved outside the city now. They are now getting less tax revenue since the law passed. It's feel good legislation for dummies. Is this woman in NY a Democrat by any chance?

21 ways it's being accomplished. http://arbalestquarrel.com/arsenal-destruction-21-mechanisms-defeating-second-amendment/

Which Lightfield slug are you using in them?