Mr VJP

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. Recently, 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” meanslegalizing 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

Why don't you address the situation that exists in PA vs NY Mike? That would be productive rather than hysterical.

Well, when you kick a dog enough, it's going to turn and bite you. Then you can say the dog is dangerous and ask that it be put down. That's how you give a good dog a bad image. The public's perception can be manipulated. Hunters never had to voice a concern in PA because they weren't being attacked for being OK with fracking. I guess there are no scientists in PA either. Especially since fracking began, there hasn't been any political will to shut it down.

When has the government ever taken extra tax revenue to pay down the national debt? Every tax increase is used to buy more votes for those who give out the freebies.

Those who want the government to collect more taxes, really want the government to spend even more money!

Why shouldn't those of us who work hard and attain success be made to pay for the people who are sloths and parasites on the rest of the citizens? After all that's the Marxist way.

Zero Tolerance = Zero Intelligence. Case by case analysis is the best way to go. Too bad this girl had to fight the educational system in order to teach them something. http://news10.com/2014/12/16/local-senior-wins-fight-to-have-portrait-included-in-yearbook/

Doc, it perfectly illustrates why some folks hate the NRA though. When you mangle the meaning of the Constitution to push an agenda, you are not going to support any organization that works to stop you.

It will be interesting to see how a 67% increase in price will affect the total revenue the stamp collects. In most free market models, if the cost of something is raised that much, the demand goes down accordingly. I worry the price increase may have a negative affect on the total number of stamps sold. That would also put the burden of the funds on fewer duck hunters and misc stamp buyers. Maybe it's time to require more than just duck hunters purchase one.

Heck, if I knew he was mentally disabled, I would've given him a pass from the start! LOL!

This is not directed at nyantler: I think it's very important to point out RIGHTS are something you're born with. The Bill of Rights simply outlines what they are. If you think the government can remove a RIGHT by determining there is no longer a need for it, you are incorrect. This kind of convoluted thinking may be why some gun owners are anti-NRA though.

Not only did his post not explain how he believes we have a Bill of Needs attached to the US Constitution, it perfectly illustrates that junkie has trouble with the meaning of the written word when used in a sentence. To him, that one word must mean the government can decide what rights you need and ban any they feel you don't. It's scary any American would think like that. Must've been told to think that by someone somewhere.

The info was forwarded to me in an e-mail from a friend in Washington State. I think the only thing that needs to be credible is the data posted.

Please continue. I do sooo want to hear this. The 2nd Amendment part that is

Remember this WHEN YOU DO YOUR TAXES IN APRIL) ! Remember this WHEN YOU DO YOUR TAXES IN APRIL) ! ! ! ! ! ! In case you didn't notice. Here is what happened on January 1, 2014 : Top Medicare tax went from 1.45% to 2.35%, an increase of 62 % Top Income tax bracket went from 35% to 39.6%, an increase of 13 % Top Income payroll tax went from 37.4% to 52.2%, an increase of 52 % Capital Gains tax went from 15% to 28% an increase of 87 % Dividends tax went from 15% to 39.6%, an increase of 164 % Estate tax went from 0% to 55%, an increase of infinity . . . Remember this fact: These taxes were all passed with only democrat votes No republicans voted for these taxes. These taxes were all quietly passed under the Affordable Care Act, aka OBAMACARE. . And THEY told you it wasn't going to cost you anything AND you could keep your own insurance. Silly people, you'll believe anything the anointed one will tell you.

How is it that any gun owner, who claims to have some level of intellect, cannot understand why "universal background checks" would be bad for all gun owners, while having no effect on criminals? Don't you guys ever question what progressive propaganda tells you to think?

Universal Background Checks for Dummies By Robert Farago on October 4, 2013 According to a recent poll, 90 percent of Americans continue to support “universal background checks.” Given their general ignorance about all things firearm, I reckon 100 percent of the people who support “universal background checks” have no clue what “universal background checks” are, or why anybody would be against them. I say that without malice. Americans busy putting food on the table don’t have the time to examine the ins-and-outs of firearms freedom. But if there are “low information” voters who want to understand why 10 percent of Americans oppose this example of “common sense gun control,” I offer the following primer . . . Private firearms sales are gun sales between private individuals. At the moment, the federal government does not require a criminal background check for private firearms sales. Although there are plenty of laws against knowingly selling a firearm to an addict, criminal or mentally ill person, a private seller selling to a private buyer doesn’t have to access the FBI’s instant background system to see if the buyer’s a prohibited person That’s on the federal level. On the state level, some states (e.g., California) require that all gun sales go through a federal firearms licensee (a.k.a., FFL or gun dealer). By federal law, all buyers who purchase a gun through an FFL must undergo an FBI criminal background check. So in states like California, all private firearms sales are subject to an FBI background check. So there’s your first point of confusion and contention: some private gun sales are strictly private (no FBI background check or other notification to the local, state or federal government), while some firearms sales between individuals are “semi-private” (mandatory FBI background check though an FFL). It depends entirely on where you live. To understand why gun owners don’t want a federal law that make background checks “universal” (i.e. mandatory for all private firearms sales) know this: background checks for firearms purchases made through an FFL create a gun registry. A database of who bought what gun when and where. Strangely, it’s not the background check itself that creates the database. By law, the FBI must destroy the electronic record of all firearms-related background checks by the next business day. As long as the Fibbies follow the letter of the law, an FFL’s criminal background check doesn’t pose a threat to a gun owner’s personal privacy. It’s The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) that’s the problem. They’re the Agency in charge of making sure that all FFL dealers maintain a paper record of all firearms sales and transfers in their “bound book.” The ATF requires that FFLs enter the following information about a gun buyer into their bound book: 1. The date of receipt of the firearm; 2. The name and address of the non-licensee or the name and FFL license number of the licensee from whom you received the firearm; 3. The name of the manufacturer and importer (if any) of the firearm; 4. The model of the firearm; 5. The serial number of the firearm; 6. The type of firearm (pistol, revolver, rifle, shotgun, receiver, frame, etc); and 7. The caliber or gauge of the firearm This is a gun registry. By law, the federal government can’t use the information in the FFL dealer’s bound book to create a database (i.e., a centralized gun registry). Only they can. And do. By law, an FFL dealer must provide sales information recorded in their bound book to various federal agencies when asked to assist with a criminal investigation. By law, an FFL dealer who retires from the business must surrender their bound books to the ATF. In both cases, records are kept, a registry (whether paper or electronic) created. Bottom line: private firearms sales that go through an FFL dealer, recorded in their bound book, are not private, safe or secure. After Ruby Ridge, Waco and Fast and Furious, gun owners don’t trust the ATF with their personal information. One more wrinkle: some states maintain a registry of all private firearms sales (e.g., Connecticut, New York and New Jersey). Gun owners in states where private sales are private—and many of those who live in states with state-run gun registries—don’t see the advantages of the system. The background check system in general, and private sales background checks in specific, don’t deter criminals from illegally obtaining firearms. The DOJ link establishing source of crime guns has been disabled by government shutdown. Suffice it to say, the oft-repeated statistic that 40 percent of firearms used in crimes come from gun shows (i.e. involving private sales without background checks) is false. Less than four percent of guns used in crimes are attributable to that source. The vast majority are obtained by theft. More to the point, gun owners who oppose universal background checks see a tremendous downside to the mandate. They believe that universal background checks will lead, eventually, to firearms confiscation. We can argue about the likelihood of that happening: the federal or state government outlawing and then confiscating a type of weapon (say, assault rifles). We can debate the chances of government deeming an entire class of people unsuitable for gun ownership (say, people who take anti-depressants). But there’s no doubt that a “universal background check” law—requiring all firearms sales to go through an FFL dealer—would create a gun registry. Equally, there’s no question that gun registries enable gun confiscation. It’s common sense; it’s a whole lot easier to confiscate guns if you know who’s got what gun and where they live. From gun confiscation a loss of individual liberty inevitably flows, engendering state-sponsored mass murder.That is the nightmare that millions of gun owners fear. Again, this is not paranoia. The formula—gun registration => gun confiscation => police state => mass murder—is a demonstrable, historical and contemporary fact of life. Click here for a post making that connection. Or ask yourself why anyone would allow themselves to be the victim of genocide if they were armed. Gun control advocates insist that “expanded” or “universal” background checks would make us safer. The exact opposite is true. Criminals would continue to get access to firearms while the law would put us on the slippery slope to the kind of government tyranny our forefathers fought to make us free.

Why universal background checks won't work By C. D. Michel, adjunct professor, Chapman University School of Law There are three basic problems with universal background checks; it will have no effect, the numbers don’t prove the case, and the only way to make the scheme remotely effective is repugnant to the people. Those are three big hills to climb. That’s why few politicians seem ready to take the hike. Most important is that criminals disobey such laws (and according to the Supreme Court in their Haynes vs. U.S. decision, criminals are not legally obligated to). In a report titled “Firearm Use by Offenders”, our own Federal Government noted that nearly 40 percent of all crime guns are acquired from street level dealers, who are criminals in the black market business of peddling stolen and recycled guns. Standing alone, this shows that “universal” background checks would have an incomplete effect on guns used in crimes. The story gets worse. The same study notes that just as many crime guns were acquired by acquaintances, be they family or friends (this rather lose category also includes fellow criminals, who are equally unlikely to participate in “universal” background checks). Totaled, nearly 80 percent of crime guns are already outside of retail distribution channels (which are 14 percent of crime gun sources) and outside of transactions made by the law abiding folks who would participate in “universal” background checks at gun shows (0.7 percent). When 80 percent of the problem is not addressed by legislation, even if the law was enforced it would be nearly useless. In the rush to do “something,” bad legislation is proposed and then has to be justified. When public support for “universal” registration started slipping, politicians brought out statistics to bolster their case. Unsurprisingly those statistics were as weak as the legislation itself. “As many as 40 percent of all gun purchases are conducted without a background check,” was President Barack Obama’s assertion concerning the National Instant Check System (NICS) which is exercised by every licensed gun retailer in the country. Aside from problem that 80 percent of crime guns come from non-retail acquisitions, the president’s 40 percent number is horribly mangled and completely inaccurate. The quoted datum (which actually totaled 36 percent, not 40 percent) came from a survey conducted before NICS came into being in 1998. The 1994 survey, reported in the 1997 study “Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms”, 36 percent of transfers (not sales just simple transfers of possession) were outside of background checks. “Transfer” is another very lose category which include gifts, trades, inheritances, and loans as well as sales. Indeed, 17 percent of all those transactions were non-sales, and 27 percent were outside of normal retail channels. So “universal” background checks would only extend to an additional 9% of firearm transactions under the most favorable circumstances. Though 80 percent of crime guns already bypass the new system. To achieve any degree of success, the “universal” background check system would require universal gun registration. Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas) has already acknowledged this, which doomed the bill before it was drafted. Despite denials by some politicians, registration has already led to gun confiscation in the United States – in New York, California, Chicago, District of Columbia. Voters are wary of repeating the same process in their home towns. National registration to support “universal” background checks is almost universally repugnant. This is the insurmountable hill representatives and senators face. Universal background checks aren’t the answer. Voters are anxious and willing to control violence. But controlling guns doesn’t control criminals and lunatics. Cops and counseling do. Michel, an adjunct professor at the Chapman University School of Law and a senior partner at Michel & Associates, P.C. If you can't understand this, you simply choose not to.

There have been a few posts on this forum regarding the effectiveness of the .223 cartridge on deer. It will certainly kill deer, provided the right bullets are used in the round when hunting. The only caveat is energy loss at long range. Under 200 yards you will have plenty, beyond that it's marginal to ineffective. That is most likely why it is perfectly legal to use a .223 for deer in NY.

Why? You think I care about it or what you think of me? LOL! Steve, you are less significant to me than a speck of dust on the most distant planet in the universe. But banning things because someone thinks we don't need them, is. (It would be interesting to see how we do a show of hands on the internet though)

LOL!

Aww, you're getting angry. Time to up the meds. Again, the point was about need vs rights Steve. I never said you were wrong. I check and clarified what I was referencing, then pointed out Cuomo banned something less dangerous than blunt objects. I typed that as slowly as I could the last time. I find it interesting you keep saying I have a problem. Most shrinks will readily point out those that accuse, are usually the one's who are guilty.

Getting back to my original point here: We have a Bill of Rights, not a Bill of Needs. I laugh when people say somethings should be banned because they are not needed. And that argument pretty much imploded against large cap mags with Ferguson, MO.

Obviously you are statistical chart challenged and don't comprehend the written word very well. Let me restate what I wrote for you. H A M M E R S K I L L M O R E T H A N T H E R I F L E S C U O M O B A N N E D DO ! I love people who get so hyped up when they make themselves look stupid.