Mr VJP

A few days ago I send you a PM about bear hunting in Sussex Cty NJ. Just wondering if you got it.

"One of the best ways to get yourself a reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the great struggle for independence." —Columbia University professor Charles Austin Beard (1874-1948)

Not always true of bears in NJ though.

I didn't really assume they were different. When I said, "That is the big question", I was looking to see if anyone had the right answer. Congratulations! You aced the exam.

Belo, you missed the fact you are advocating removing freedom of choice from most Americans in return for false security.

Thanks for the info beachpeaz. I can't believe someone would go to that much trouble for some antlers. Before they were given any type of trophy status, it was common for people to throw them away.

Try walking over the state line into PA and buying a gun. Let me know what happens when you do.

The Obama administration has already decided the legislature is not the place for their advancement of the Left's gun control agenda. They have found the court system to be the place for them to dictate gun control policy. Holder was more than willing to implement unconstitutional violations of the 2nd Amendment. Lynch is merely Holder 2.0 and will continue on the same path. Why did the GOP allow her confirmation? That is the big question.

I'm not one to look for shed antlers. I've never heard of an antler trap. Anyone care to post a photo, or describe one for me?

So why the big desire to disarm the rest of the citizen's over a fear of school shootings? Have you experienced one of those among your friends and relatives?

This is from NJ, but I can see NY looking at it with an approving eye. http://www.nj.com/monmouth/index.ssf/2015/04/court_rules_gun_permit_can_be_denied_over_domestic.html#incart_river_mobile

So there is only a small chance you may be a victim, but you are OK with removing as much of the American citizen's 2nd Amendment rights as possible in order to make us all safer? What if the idiot wanted to take your child at gunpoint? What choice would you make? You may think not preparing to defend yourself, or your child, is playing it safe, but I'd have to say your taking chances with your lives.

A little history lesson on Social Security

They also make self defense easier, do they not?

The way I see it, the more dangerous the country gets, the more the government wants to make all of it's citizens defenseless. Why remove the right to self defense when it becomes more likely you will need it? To bring it back to the O.P., that's what this Tim McGraw concert is helping to do.

Insight: "The human race divides itself politically into those who want to be controlled, and those who have no such desire." —American writer Robert A. Heinlein (1907-1988)

Quote "I ask the question because many of you good ole' boys seem to not care that the rusted out silverado with dirty ball cap wearing guy has a gun in his truck. But should it be a new cadillac with a black guy in a hoodie or arab looking person I bet you react differently. What you all fail to see is that your version of the world no longer exists. If you're not going to introduce some level of gun control, then the guy taking his kid rabbit hunting is no different than the guy intending to do harm. A gun in the truck, is a gun in the truck. Guns are not evil, but some who use them are. Your simple refusal to say "hey guns shouldn't be around near schools" is just bafeling because you live in these little small rural towns and don't have a freaking clue of what going on in the world other than what you read about online." So because some people are evil, all people must be controlled. Why don't we try to control the evil people and leave the good people alone? Gun free zones are nothing more than self defense free zones. "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

"He was wrong of course. Life is much better now than in 1948 in almost every single way." That is a matter of opinion of course. When discussing American values and the standards of American culture, he was certainly right. I will also give more value to the opinion of the man who actually was living it, than someone who can only read about it now.

Wooly, that's a Mossberg 395. I believe it was the latest rendintion of their bolt action shotgun. I had one as a young man. Sent it to E.R. Shaw in PA to have a rifled barrel put on it before anyone was making them commercially. Put a 2x7 scope on it and it basically became a .73 caliber rifle for deer hunting. I killed my biggest deer to date with that rig.

Let me correct this myth. Conservatives are pro-life. They believe killing an unborn child is murder. That's not hard to understand. Liberals believe it's not murder. They believe it's not a child. The SCOTUS has decided it's a privacy issue. So neither political side has been vindicated. That's why it's still an issue. On the second point, Conservatives believe it is the obligation of the parents to provide for their children. If you can't feed them, don't breed them. They will, however, provide assistance to any family that falls on hard times, through no fault of their own, with the intention of getting them back on their feet. Liberals promote the destruction of the family with support for abortion, same sex marriage, additional welfare for single mothers who choose to have another child, no fault divorce and single parent families, by offering assistance, with taxpayer funds, to people who voluntarily choose to put themselves in a hard position. The Liberal policies of the past and present are most responsible for the need to provide food and healthcare for the children of Americans who are making poor choices. Liberals actually admit to their failed policies by arguing we must abort children because we cannot feed them or take care of them. The rights of children in America has to start with the right to be born. The other issues can't be corrected if they are not alive.

Born, you got to it just before I could and you nailed it. Personally, I don't care if the person with a gun in the truck is an alien from outer space. I'm only concerned with the actions they exhibit with it. My first reaction to anyone I see with a firearm isn't fear, it's more of a feeling of brotherhood, no matter who they are. I initially see in them what I see in myself. But if they start to act in a criminal fashion, I now see them as someone who needs to be shot. The firearm is only a tool, a tool that can be used for good or evil. The person is the weapon.

Chimps now have more rights than an unborn child.

Insight: "The human race divides itself politically into those who want to be controlled, and those who have no such desire." —American writer Robert A. Heinlein (1907-1988) A man with a gun in a truck rack doesn't make me nervous. I prefer to assume he's a good man. I'll observe his actions though, and if they appear to be a threat, I'll deal with it as best I can. The problem with NY State is, it prefers to limit what I can do about it.

It may be ugly, but it adds versatility to the gun. It will tighten patterns, but tends to string the shot when it does because of the short forcing cone in the choke. But in reality, it's no worse performance wise than many of the screw in chokes that are supplied on guns today.

Why not just buy another barrel for it, or trade that one for a new one.. Extra Mossberg barrels are pretty cheap.