Mr VJP

You would think so, but it still allows opportunity to infringe on the types of hunting that will be allowed. Bow hunting, bear hunting, dove hunting, Sunday hunting, etc., could all still be attacked on the ballot.

Actually, ballot measures are often in conflict with the interests of the state, but they have to be put on the ballot by law if the petition is successful and the cause is legal. A measure calling for the elimination of taxes may not be legal, but one calling for the elimination of hunting would be. If the measure isn't something the state wants to see, huge amounts of taxpayer money would be spent by the state to defeat the measure. That's another problem with referendums.

Ha! Seriously though, that will just lower the value of the gun. Besides opening it all the way to Cyl mode offers the same open bore as sawing it off.

One thing that must be considered with shotgun slugs is performance on game. All slugs will kill deer, but some have a tendency to penetrate completely through the deer without expanding. The saboted ones that are made from hard lead and are often only about .50 caliber with a wasp waist style are especially bad. They may be very accurate, but they may also set the hunter up for a long tracking task after the shot. If you hunt in a populated area, you may also find the deer runs far enough for another hunter to have a chance to finish it off. I prefer to consider terminal performance of a slug first, then buy some to check accuracy. This Mossberg barrel will work well on most full size slugs out to 75 yards or so. The gun's receiver probably isn't tapped for a scope. Adding a scope to the receiver with a saddle type mount often helps to extend the range to about 100 yards.

Slugs actually are OK and will shoot well when the choke is set on the Cyl setting and full size slugs are used. I expect Federal Tru-Ball slugs would work well.

This is exactly the type of problem predicted when states started talking about allowing referendums on the ballot. Anything can be on the ballot with enough signatures on a petition. That's how Washington state got it's recent horrible gun transfer law on the books. Whenever something is on the ballot for a vote, you allow majority opinion to decide what the law will be. But sometimes when the special interests don't like the outcome of the vote, like when a state bans same sex marriage, they will take it to court, after court, after court, until it is invalidated. That costs the state's taxpayers millions. The state Wildlife agency should be the only group that can propose game laws, but the state legislators must vote it into law, based on the opinions of the residents of the state. Out of state residents have no influence over it without referendums on the ballot.

That's a barrel with the original Mossberg adjustable choke that used to come on their factory barrels. It works like a Poly Choke. You screw it down to tighten it to Full and unscrew it to open it up to Cyl. Those fingers inside are forced together by that collar when it's tightened. The little silver plate on the top tells you where the choke is set. Popular in the late 1960's. It has a rather short forcing cone so recoil is higher when it's set to full and the patterns were not known to be the best, but it does adjust the pattern when needed. Never shoot it without the choke collar installed and tightened at least to the Cyl setting. It could damage it.

It should do fine if you place your shot right. NJ does have some big black bear approaching 800 pounds though. Might want to keep the shot under 75 yards on a big one even using 3" mags.

Yes, it is shotgun only. Slugs are best. Rifled barrels are the norm too. Muzzleloading rifles are allowed too, but you need to have a NJ Rifle permit to hunt with one. I've had mine for so long, I'm not sure what it takes to get one anymore. I think you just apply and pay for it.

It's a good idea, but I don't think they can get it approved for the 2015 season at this point.

No sidearms allowed in the woods while hunting in NJ. Non-residents cannot even bring one into the state without risking a prison sentence.

I called NJ F&W to ask some questions @ 609-292-2965. (Feel free to call them with any questions you may have) They said you no longer have to take the bear hunting class to get the permit. Licenses run from 1/1/15 to 12/31/15, so you can buy your non-resident license now if you like, but the permit application has to wait until Sept. You can hunt big game, as well as small game with your license. Just check what seasons are open when you wish to hunt. Small game is not open during big game season, but it is when you are scouting prior to big game season. I think big game season will open on 12/7/15 and run through 12/12/15. It opens on a Monday every year. You can hunt antlered deer and bear at the same time when you have a bear permit, as buck deer and bear season is the same 6 day season. Most bear are taken in Sussex County, NJ. That's the area I would advise you apply for a permit. Lot's of public land open for bear hunting there as well. I believe this area also allows taking any antlered buck you see with at least 3 inches of antler. There is no hunting on Sunday in NJ except during bow deer, and only on State WMA's and private land.

Born, the odds are high you will get a permit because in the permit drawing, there are often fewer requests for a permit than there are permits available. They sell them over the counter after that until all are sold. What zone did you apply for and where in NJ are you planning to hunt? As far as protection needed, nobody has ever been attacked by a black bear in most of NJ's bear hunting zones. It happened to a group of college kids who scattered, ran from it and didn't try yelling at it or making themselves look big to it, all tactics that may have helped scare it off. You can carry a can of bear spray if you like, but having a license to hunt in NJ allows small game hunting as well. You will be able to scout while hunting with a shotgun for grouse and squirrel. Why not hunt while you scout? You can't carry any buckshot or slugs with you for small game though. However, if needed, a load of 12 gauge #6 bird shot delivered point blank to a bear's vitals or head, will be quite effective. In the past, NJ required all bear hunters to take a class on bear hunting in order to get a first time bear permit. Did you need to do that?

A rose is still a rose, and gun control is still gun control. Country music headliner Tim McGraw has announced that he will be staging a concert in Hartford, Connecticut this July as a benefit for the group Sandy Hook Promise (http://www.sandyhookpromise.org). The concert is scheduled for July 17, and is billed as featuring McGraw, along with Billy Currington (who has now announced that he won't be participating) and Chase Bryant, as well as some "surprise guests." Fans will no doubt be hoping the "surprise" will include McGraw's wife, country music superstar Faith Hill. All proceeds from the concert will go directly to benefit Sandy Hook Promise and their various programs. In a statement McGraw said, "Sandy Hook Promise teaches that we can do something to protect our children from gun violence. I want to be a part of that promise – as a father and as a friend." A personal connection appears to be the spark that brought McGraw to the organization. One of McGraw's band members, fiddle player Dean Brown, has friends in Newtown who lost a son in the Sandy Hook tragedy. So what's the problem? Why would it be controversial for a country music star to do a benefit concert to assist the activities of the grieving families of Sandy Hook? The problem is that, even though Sandy Hook Promise goes to a lot of trouble trying to paint themselves as something other than a gun control group, that's exactly what they are. Reviewing their website, there is little mention of gun control. They talk about broader issues like recognizing the signs of depression and mental illness, alienation, and anti-social actions. They talk about safe storage of firearms, and the education of children and gun owners about the dangers guns can pose. They talk about a lot of things that I, and just about anyone, would consider worthwhile and productive. But they talk about all of these things within a context of "reducing gun violence," which, as I pointed out in this column just last week, is a bit of verbal sleight-of-hand, intentionally used to distort public perception. I won't deny that Sandy Hook Promise has several good programs doing good work. Nonetheless, despite the organization's claims that they want to focus on violence, not guns, and that they want to enact "gun safety" legislation that does not infringe on Second Amendment rights, their actions say something else. They actively lobby for expanding restrictions on gun owners, and brag about their accomplishments toward doing so in Connecticut, Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Illinois – all states that have recently passed restrictions on responsible gun owners. They stand strongly in support of legislation to criminalize private firearms transfers and create a federal registry of guns and gun owners. They are also closely allied with anti-rights groups like the Brady Campaign, and Mike Bloomberg's groups, Everytown for Gun Safety and Moms Demand Action. In the same breath, leaders of Sandy Hook Promise claim that they want to take the focus off of guns and put it on the underlying problems that make guns dangerous, while supporting their positions with distorted and exaggerated statistics from anti-rights propaganda. In all of this, for all of their talk about wanting to enhance gun safety and avoid infringing on Second Amendment rights, the group avoids proven gun safety programs and groups that have helped to consistently reduce unintentional firearm deaths and injuries for decades. They embrace the Bradys and Bloombergs, with their false "gun control = gun safety" claims, while recoiling from the National Rifle Association, National Shooting Sports Foundation (which is headquartered in Newtown), and firearm safety programs from 4H, the Boy Scouts, and local gun clubs. By making "gun violence" the centerpiece of their work, instead of "school violence," "youth violence," "mental health support," Sandy Hook Promise closes doors, blocks natural alliances, and alienates millions of concerned gun owners who would gladly support their programs. By focusing on the tools disturbed people use, rather than the people committing the act, Sandy Hook Promise creates division and discord, making something as laudable as a country music star putting on a charity concert a controversial issue. I understand the need to answer grief with action, especially when the grief is sudden, shocking, and totally unexpected. On Easter Sunday, just days before his first birthday, my grandson was involved in an accident involving a horse-cart (http://www.gofundme.com/rqdxr4) Thanks to the selfless acts of his mother, he was virtually unharmed, but she did not survive. Violent head trauma caused her brain to shut down, and doctors couldn't save her. The helplessness and emptiness that follows such personal tragedies compel us to do something. My something was to initiate a college fund for Jaimy's boys. The idea of restricting horse-carts, or campaigning for horse-cart helmet laws never occurred to me, and would have been immediately dismissed if it had. Education about risks and dangers would be reasonable, and for that, I would turn to equestrian organizations for assistance, not a group that wants to eliminate all domestic animals like PETA. I have no doubt that Tim McGraw's heart is in the right place, just as I have no doubt about the motivations of the people behind Sandy Hook Promise, but despite their words to the contrary, Sandy Hook Promise has proven to be an active gun control organization, and anyone who supports them is attacking our Second Amendment rights. That cannot be left unchallenged. Tim McGraw needs to hear it from his friends and fans. — Jeff Knox The Shooting Wire

Following the school shooting in Newtown, Conn. the gun control debate reached a fever pitch and has since started to subside. Shortly after the event, president Obama signed a set of executive orders designed to enhance the enforcement of existing gun laws. President Obama also called for the renewal of an "assault weapon" ban and magazine capacity limits. Of course these became the rallying cry of those who are opposed to guns and gun rights and this was quickly followed by legislative proposals. The debate raged. Now, it appears that these measures are effectively dead, at least nationally. As these endeavors were dying, the anti-gun groups began proposing new measures; measures that are equally ridiculous, including liability insurance and gun registration. The latter, registration, which is required in a few states has long been opposed both by the majority of gun owners and organizations such as the NRA as well as just about every grass roots gun rights group in the nation. The latest such proposal, eloquently termed Universal Background Checks is likewise meeting opposition. What is interesting about this is that this was considered to be one of the more 'common sense' proposals and at points prior even had the support of organizations like the NRA. The question is what changed? The biggest thing is that the specter of confiscation reared its ugly head. As NY governor Cuomo put it, "Confiscation could be an option". Also, with the passage of the NY law, citizens were expected to turn in or destroy magazines that were suddenly illegal. With this remark, the genie left the bottle and it is going to be very difficult to get it back in. This brings us to the problem with Universal Background Checks. The idea behind it being that every gun transfer, with few exceptions, requires a background check to be performed. The idea is obviously an attempt to close what is commonly called, "the gun show loophole", or more formally referred to as face to face transfers. On the surface, this doesn't seem like a bad idea and may indeed prevent some who should not be allowed access to guns from getting them and may also lead to the arrest and prosecution of some criminals who try. The problem, as with most things, is that the Devil is in the details. The most fundamental problem with this proposal is that criminals will continue to ignore it and will still engage in black market transactions. With approximately millions of guns already in circulation it is easy to see why even in the light of a requirement for background checks that a thriving black market will remain. In light of the realization of the power possessed by the black markets, how is society to enforce or otherwise make full use of a requirement for Universal Background Checks. The unfortunately truth is that in the absence of Universal Gun Registration that a Universal Background Check is all but meaningless. This can't be overemphasized, so let's repeat it. In order for a UBC to have any meaning, it requires gun registration and this is a problem. It is a problem because, as the gun community correctly argues, registration leads to confiscation. There is only one reason for the government or law enforcement to know who has what guns. That they can take them when it has been decided that Joe and Jane Citizen are no longer allowed to have a particular gun and to prevent Joe or Jane from refusing to comply with the forced ban. As I mentioned above, thanks to governor Cuomo, this genie is no longer in its bottle. An FFL recently reported that awhile back he was subjected to an audit by the BATFE. Regulations require him to keep copies of the Federal Form 4473 for each firearm purchase; in fact this form is required for each inquiry into the NICS background check system. Supposedly the NICS records are purged after a period of three months. Even though these records are supposed to be purged, the auditor had copies of the records going back at least one year and demanded to see the corresponding 4473 forms. When questioned how and why they were inquiring for these records as they were supposed to have been purged, he received the response from the auditor, "That is what we are supposed to say." In other words, the records are not purged and the government is using the form 4473 as a backdoor form of registration. Apparently this is proving insufficient because later private sales may have transpired and some desire to use the recent tragedy to bring registration to the forefront. This represents a turning point. Clearly the objective is registration and this cannot be allowed to happen. It has already gone too far. As Universal Background Checks are meaningless without formal registration, anyone who supports them is doing so without any understanding about why they are actually being sought. Anyone who believes this is all paranoia and will never happen, needs to start reading up on exactly what is currently happening in Washington State, proving UBC's are not something any informed gun owner would support.

One thing generally overlooked in the uproar over the Washington Navy Yard shooting -- and all other recent mass shootings -- is that guns are being used to shield failed liberal policies. Such policies have been implicated in most, if not all, gun massacres. As is customary when encountering failure, liberals immediately cast around looking for someone or something else to blame, in this case, guns and anything associated with them, including the NRA, the bitter clingers, and so on. The failed policies they are attempting to protect include: ● Gun-Free Zones -- According to John Lott, Jr. every last mass killing since the 1950s has occurred in a "gun-free zone." The Navy Yard massacre is only the latest. Despite what you may have read throughout the conservative media, this is not a Clinton-era effort but was an order issued by a Defense undercrat duing the Bush 41 administration. In 2011, the order was reaffirmed by Deputy Secretary of Defense William J. Lynn III, following the Fort Hood massacre. As with similar civilian venues, this action in effect put up a sign saying, "Come on in and Kill People." Major Nidal Hasan and now Aaron Alexis have taken advantage of this offer, along with Jared Loughner, James Holmes, Adam Lanza, and Cho Seung-hui. While we can't force school boards, mall owners, or theater operators to cease putting students and customers in jeopardy, this can be accomplished quite simply as regards the military by an order from the Secretary of Defense. ● Criminal Background Checks -- It's no coincidence that this latest shooting occurred in the midst of a governmental push to outlaw criminal background checks for employment purposes. Laws of this type have been passed in California and Newark, N.J. The Obama and Holder federal government can't be far behind. As seen with "gun-free zones" the military has often been used as a stalking horse for such efforts. Have orders come down to put such a policy in effect, and was Alexis a beneficiary? We don't know, and nobody has bothered to check. The shredders in the offices of USIS, the contractor that vetted Alexis for the Navy, must have been running hot this week. (USIS also cleared Snowden. Bad sign.) It's next to impossible to explain how this guy, with his record, was ever hired, much less given a security clearance. Alexis was cited in two previous gunplay incidents, one involving a round fired through the floor of his upstairs neighbor with whom he had exchanged words, and the other in a parking confrontation -- an aggressive act. He also committed a number of misdemeanors sufficient to separate him from the Navy in 2008, but not enough to keep him out of a critical naval headquarters as a civilian contractor. One such incident is a misfortune. Two strongly suggests carelessness. There is no way they could have been "overlooked" during the vetting process. Somebody was ordered to ignore them. ● Affirmative action -- Both large-scale military base slayings were carried out by protected minorities. We can say without much fear of contradiction that Nidal Hassan was covered by someone -- probably many someones -- in the military hierarchy due to a desire to have a Muslim officer to show off in public. Despite his lectures praising Jihadi terrorists, his refusal to serve in theatres involving combat against "fellow Muslims," and his Jihad r' Us business cards, Hasan was shielded right up to the day he opened fire at Fort Hood. Needless to say, nobody in today's debased officer corps suffered for this. The same process is not at all unlikely in the case of Aaron Alexis. A black Buddhist is a twofer, a catch that any affirmative action officer would boast about for the rest of his career. It's unlikely the vetting process went deeper than that. It's well known that when racial quotas are involved, other criteria are thrust aside. This practice has become life-threatening. We'll see more of it. ● Mental Health "Reforms" -- It's not easy to obtain legal control over mentally-disturbed individuals or to force them to accept treatment. Liberals like to claim that this is a legacy of Ronald Reagan, who "defunded the mental health establishment." This is an attack that mixes ignorance with ideology. In truth, the deinstitutionalization of the mentally ill was formalized in 1966 by Judge David L. Bazelon, who in a Solomonic daze discovered that the mentally ill retain all their rights despite their condition and cannot be coerced even to protect the public, which means that for all practical purposes the insane have more rights than healthy, sane individuals. In two court cases, Bazelon (The name sounds familiar because his granddaughter Emily is a journalist specializing in legal and judicial topics for Slate, HuffPo and similar publications.) ruled that the insane could not be incarcerated against their will (Lake v. Cameron) or forced to accept any particular type of treatment (Rouse v. Cameron). This is why so many of the derelict insane are rambling homeless around urban areas rather than being under some form of care. Deprived of the alternative of incarceration, many communities allow the insane to continue acting out until blood flows. Jared Loughner, notorious in Tucson for his demented stunts, James Holmes, whose psychiatrist actually reported him to police, and Cho Seung-hui, who frightened nearly everyone he encountered at Virginia Tech, might have been safely locked away if not for Judge Bazelon's humanitarian impulses. (Bazelon was still boasting about his achievement in his memoir Questioning Authority, published in 1988, long after the horror of his decisions had become apparent.) The same may well be true of Aaron Alexis. According to Charles Krauthammer, a trained psychiatrist, Alexis displayed every sign of schizophrenia. Following a confrontation at the Birmingham airport, Alexis called police to report that the people involved -- a vacationing black family -- had followed him to Hartford, Connecticut and were beaming microwaves at him from the adjoining suite. Shortly thereafter he was booted from Virginia naval housing following claims of laughter tormenting him from his linen closet. The Bazelon touch is clearly visible here. Despite what was by all indications quite a loud confrontation, the Birmingham TSA did nothing. The Hartford police, presented with the classic symptoms of a psychotic breakdown, simply allowed Alexis to stumble off pursued by microwaves. It never occurred to Navy personnel in Virginia to notify Navy personnel in Washington that their new hire was as crazy as a rat in a can. The authorities were offered three chances to step in. As at Pinal College in Tucson, the University of Colorado, and Virginia Tech, they failed each time. But we got to get them AR-15s off the streets. We could go on with this as long as we liked. It's often pointed out that without the top four American cities for homicide -- Washington, Chicago (newly crowned murder capital of the USA), Detroit, and New Orleans, the U.S. would have one of the lowest murder rates in the industrialized world. All these cities suffer from the liberal curse (while not a "liberal" city in the classic sense, New Orleans has been a Democratic stronghold since the late Devonian period, which is practically the same thing). As I demonstrated in my book Death by Liberalism, liberal "judicial reform" triggered the "Great Crime Explosion" of 1964-1994, with a death toll in the hundreds of thousands. The current plague of insane gunmen is simply a back eddy of that colossal act of hubris. Clearly, liberalism is far more deeply implicated in the problem of gun crime, including mass shootings, than anyone is willing to admit. There's no point in sitting around grumbling about this -- it's all of piece with the liberal culture of denial inculcated since preschool. Instead, use this information. Too often 2nd Amendment advocates merely defend gun ownership. The best defense is a good offense. Make them explain why these atrocities always seem to occur in their bailiwicks, under the protection of their rules and laws, and by the hands of their protected classes -- lunatics or select social or religious oddities. That will be enough to throw them off their stride before they can erupt into their customary tantrums. They might even forget to mention the mighty AR-15. J.R. Dunn The American Thinker

When people talk about guns in the aftermath of a public shooting tragedy, they argue about what “we” should do about guns in America. “We should limit the capacity of magazines. No one needs the ability to fire off hundreds of rounds.” “We should ban assault rifles. No one needs that kind of gun. It was designed for the military.” “We should stop people from buying body armor. No one needs that kind of protection.” “We should prevent the ‘mentally unstable’ from getting access to guns.” If you’re saying stuff like that, you must have a gnome in your pocket. Who is this “we?” You and your tiny vote? Is it you and your elected representatives in Congress—those morally upright do-gooders who have an approval rating hovering around 20%? Is it you and them? When you say “we” should control guns, what you’re effectively saying is that “they” should control guns. After all, unless you’re a legislator or a law enforcement officer, you won’t be writing the laws or enforcing the laws or controlling the guns. Someone else will be doing that. And he or she will have a gun, or be standing in front of someone who does. Who will decide who is mentally unstable? Not you. Who will decide how many bullets you need or how much protection you need? Not you. They will take care of that for you. You will be powerless to stop them. You will be powerless to do anything but scream and shout and “protest.” And be careful, because if you scream and shout too much, they might declare you mentally unstable. Who would stop them? Who could? Not you. Documentary filmmaker Michael Moore gave an emotional speech on television about the need for more gun control laws. Moore specializes in films about big business and state corruption. If Americans agreed tomorrow to peacefully turn their guns over to the state, would this corruption end? Would the global corporations, foreign interests, and extremely wealthy men stop influencing public policy? Of course not. Moore was also a vocal supporter of the “Occupy Wall Street” movement, which criticized the “one percent” of Americans who control almost half of the nation’s wealth. The “one percent” are no doubt responsible for a great deal of injustice and obviously, they play a major role in state corruption. If the “one percent” controls the state, they also control the majority of its guns by proxy. After all, doesn’t America—if Moore and others are to be believed—go to war primarily to protect the financial interests of the “one percent?” People say they want “equality.” Well, guns are great equalizers. It’s not important for citizens to own guns so they can go hunting or sport shooting. Self-defense is a good reason to own a gun, but it’s not the most important reason. The most important reason for citizens to own guns is as a deterrent against state corruption and tyranny. The state doesn’t fight with swords or magic wands. It fights with guns. Americans need assault rifles precisely because they were designed for the military. Americans need guns because without them, Americans can never do what the nation’s founding fathers did. Without guns, Americans will never again be able to say ENOUGH in a way that matters. Sure, they’ll be able to scream and shout and protest. But, what happens to protesters when they are confronted with superior firepower? Eventually, they go home or they go to jail. What else can they do? They accomplish nothing, because they have no power that matters. The “one percent” stays in charge. Guns even the odds in favor of the “ninety-nine percent.” Mao Zedong famously wrote that, “Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.” He was right. Violence is golden. Giving the state complete control of that power means giving one hundred percent of the power to the “one percent” who controls the corrupt state. Men without guns are at the mercy of men who have guns. If the state controls all of the guns, the people are at the mercy of the state. All they can do is plead. Men who are not allowed access to the means to challenge tyranny are no longer free men. They are subjects, possibly even slaves. A country where the people have no power that matters can no longer call itself a free country. A state where the people must rely on the benevolence of a small, all-powerful ruling class that maintains a complete monopoly on violence is a police state. The police state controls the guns, and they use the guns to control you. Gun control advocates are, in effect, advocating a police state. I think we should start calling them out on it. I think we should start referring to them as “Police State Advocates,” because a police state is essentially what they are asking for. Americans today are distracted by superficial ideas about what freedom means. To many, “freedom” means legalizing marijuana and same-sex marriage. None of those “freedoms” threaten the police state. By all means—our handlers must snicker—get stoned and marry your gay boyfriend if that makes you feel “free.” Just don’t stand up to our ever-expanding and intrusive authority, or threaten our financial interests. Give us your guns, and never say ENOUGH in any way that matters. It’s for the best, you see. We don’t want you to hurt yourselves, or each other. Jack Donovan

Any heating in the house other than the wood stove? Indoor plumbing?

It would be nice to know the asking price prior to sending you a PM.

From what I understand, these are contracts to possibly purchase that amount. The government is not obligated to buy that much, they are just locking in a lower price with a quantity contract. At least that's the spin from those who say it's nothing to worry about.

See where it says gun security and safety? What do you think that means? It's intentionally vague because it's Orwellian double speak. Everything they have endorsed since the Sandy Hook chaos has been gun confiscation and background checks for everyone, on all gun transfers. Ask Washington State how they like it since it was rammed through. It's a gun registration scheme that is meant to lead to easier gun confiscation. In the future, anyone who owns a firearm will be subject to some form of rejection that will prevent them from keeping it. They are dreaming up countless was to deny you the right to possess a gun as I write this. Those who don't believe this is the case are the ones making it succeed.

Wooly, anti-gun violence is accomplished by taking the guns they feel you shouldn't have. You may think you are not their target. They may decide otherwise. I don't want some zealots given the power to make that decision. They've already come after handguns and AR's and they are far from finished. If they were focusing on criminals and the guns they have, i'd support them. That is not the case.

I guess he's forgotten the saga of the Dixie Chicks.

Buzz, both sides do it. Nobody said they don't. But it seems the GOP elected officials do it after they get elected and are called on it. The media demands accountability. If they are allowed off the hook, it's because both sides agree to let them off the hook. Both parties are beholden to big corporations and both are in the oligarchy. Now, here we have a Democrat that has been proven to be corrupt in so many ways, is owned by corporate America, is big in the oligarchy, and the Left still wants to put her in the highest office in the land. If that's not lunacy, nothing is.

Yeah, with taxpayer money. The trouble with socialists is, they eventually run out of other people's money. I know some folks will claim he isn't one, but when you believe in high taxes and big government controlling everything, that's what it's called.