Rattler

No matter who the GOP ran against Hillary, the Leftist Lapdog media would have done the same thing to them. They attack the GOP candidate mercilessly, but ignore everything Hillary has done in the past, and continues to do today. It's a propaganda machine designed to get her elected. That's enough to make me vote for whoever is running against her. She will be the worst president ever if she wins, and considering how bad Obama has been, that's saying a lot.

That's RACIST!

The 2nd Amendment and the Supreme Court will be winners if Trump wins. Hillary will destroy both if she wins. That would lead to the destruction of individual liberty and freedom in America, which will destroy it's prosperity.

How did the Constitution get mangled in this land? http://www.freedomworks.org/content/referendum-failure-progressive-era-part-i-progressives-pervert-our-constitution

I think that is referring to just one state in the country, but you don't say which one. Probably NY. That doesn't show the national percentage. I've seen these too.

This guy's predictions are right 95% of the time too. http://www.aol.com/article/news/2016/10/26/election-expert-declares-trump-is-going-to-be-the-next-president/21592427/

How is it Americans are stripped of their rights without so much as a wimper? The government has had lots of experience taking them away, that's how. It's learned from it's mistakes exactly how to do it now. People need to understand how it's done if they want to retain their freedom, liberty, independence and rights. Leaps and Bounds For those who believe in 'being prepared,' ( a Boy Scout basic skill ) loss of freedom is a critical issue. The idea of self-reliance is antithetical to the ethics of the government functionary by virtue of being a threat to that person's employment. Knowing how the elites accomplish social change through politics gives you an edge: you more closely evaluate news and political pronouncements and you take ownership of the political process. Consider incrementalism. "It's not the way social change is accomplished. I know that people talk in those terms – especially politicians – but it's not how politicians and the ruling class work change in America. It's how they prove they are on one side of the issue or another. It's how they prove they're no threat and that their opponents provide the threat. It's how they've done business for forty years – and it's a winning strategy. Donald Trump made a speech in which he alleged that Hillary Clinton "wants to abolish, essentially abolish the Second Amendment." Mrs. Clinton, in the third debate said, "I support the Second Amendment." In 1994 – and since – she supported the Clinton gun ban, a ban on certain firearms and "ammunition feeding devices." This was a law that saw prices on "pre-ban" guns and magazines sky rocket and saw chief law enforcement officer letters going to manufacturers to allow their officers to have these "highly dangerous" arms, these "weapons of war," according to the former Secretary of State. Meanwhile, at a Clinton campaign event on Sunday, October 23, in Las Vegas, Mr. Obama said, "They said I was gonna take everybody's guns away. So people have been hearing that, they start thinking, well, maybe it's true. So if the world that they've been seeing is that I'm powerful enough to cause hurricanes on my own and to steal everybody's guns in the middle of the night and impose martial law even though I can't talk without a prompter, then is it any wonder that they end up nominating somebody like Donald Trump?" While there were fringe elements trying to make the case that Mr. Obama was born overseas, that he was going to impose martial law and suspend the elections, and that he was going for firearms prohibition, his record makes it clear that his objective is indeed increasing restrictions on firearms ownership, carry and use – over time. It's something that the elders among us have seen since the mid-1960s in regards to firearms, but it is how the political class rules in America. See, they tried Prohibition – of alcoholic beverages – in the early 20th Century. They never forgot how that ended up. So when they hit upon the evil weed tobacco, they didn't ban cultivation, production, transportation, sale and possession of that substance: they did it piece by piece. They did this by use of media campaigns, taxation and co-opting useful idiots to send their message. In the case of tobacco, I personally have no problem with people not using it and moving others away from its use. To be fair, I'd think that if it was the deadly substance they say it is – they do have science on their side – not banning it while maintaining bans on other demonstrably dangerous substances is hypocritical. Now, as to guns, they've been using incrementalism to cut away at the Second Amendment since the clear and obvious success of the National Firearms Act of 1934 – which has likely contributed as little to public peace and safety as any statute ever passed. It doesn't have to work. You just have to have 'common sense regulation,' controlled by organizations that are never associated with common sense: government bureaucracies. Even the Los Angeles Times has finally recognized their technique. In a "Capitol Journal" report filed on Monday, Oct. 24, George Skelton laid out the case for doing what gun grabbers have been doing since before passage of the 1968 Gun Control Act: Proposition 63 would enact the toughest gun controls in the United States. But it also would do something else: represent an astonishing historical milestone. And if passed as expected, the ballot measure would illustrate a textbook example of how public policy can be radically changed in a democracy laden with competing checks and balances. How is that? Through the long, slow process of taking incremental steps over decades. By pushing hard and steadily, but with patience. (Source: Prop. 63) Hence the story is "death by a thousand cuts," being consumed a bite at a time. So what's the response? We've seen it: gun owners go on offense. You hit them by contact with legislators, from city councils all the way up to the Congress. You get on social media with every bit of news regarding nonsensical, silly and unconstitutional infringements so others in the gun culture are aware of it. You vote even when the non-prohibitionist candidate has no chance. You talk with other gun owners – those who own guns but depend on "us" to fight off assaults on the Constitution and basic civil rights. Gun owners have been successful in pushing pro-gun owner legislation state-by-state since 1986. There are more "free states" now than any time in our modern history as far as lawful concealed and open carry of firearms. The way to continue the trend is to learn from the enemy: bit by bit, piece by piece. Stay on offense. Push pro-freedom legislation and support pro-freedom candidates. As to the founding of this nation, what did the founders give us? According to the old story, Benjamin Franklin responded "a republic – if you can keep it." And that's the hard part." -- Rich Grassi

That's not Bill Clinton ants.

Let's just pray we don't wind up with "President Pantsuit" !

All Democrats are ugly, inside and out!

But over the last 8 years she has reformed her evil ways, totally enhanced her qualifications and become totally trustworthy. However, he was right that she won't change anything, at least not for the better. She won't change any of the disastrous laws Obama has forced upon the citizenry, except to make them all much worse. I can no longer even stand the sight of any of this administration's minions, from Obama on down to the least of it's supporters.

These .22's are actually a polymer/copper composite. The only thing that may work in .22's will be solid copper. They will be expensive and won't expand well, unless they have a deep hollow point, which can also be a legal issue in some locations where hollow points are banned or illegal to possess under certain circumstances.

A 2nd long gun to save a days hunt is a good idea. Many things can go wrong with a firearm that can spoil you day of hunting if you don't have another one along. BTW, Carrying a handgun for protection against bears when you have a rifle or shotgun already in your hands, seems foolish. If you can't stop a bear with your rifle or shotgun, that handgun isn't going to do it for you either.

Their numbers cannot be trusted and they can easily be "influenced" to push an agenda. Fortunately. there are people smarter than they are watching their reports. Hopefully, they won't die a premature death for their patriotism. http://www.guns.com/2016/10/19/cdc-identifies-coding-error-in-tennessees-accidental-gunshot-deaths-thanks-to-dr-john-lott/?utm_campaign=trueAnthem:+Trending+Content&utm_content=5807e25604d3014bc07d37b0&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=facebook

Want to see some real experts who have the most experience with gun control tell you the truth about gun control and it's damage to civil society? Watch this video. It's long, but it's highly intelligent and is without political bias. The speakers begin at the 19:00 minute mark, so just skip to that point at the start. http://www.heritage.org/events/2016/10/war-on-guns

When you realize Chiefs of Police are politically appointed persons, it's no stretch to see their views are completely beholden to those who appoint them. That doesn't mean their opinions represent the truth, or their troops, by any means.

A total advocate of a police state right there folks. As long as he feels they're on his side, that is. He's not smart enough to realize a police state is never on any side but their own.

John Lott responds to the NYT's personally: Dear Letters Editor: The Times incorrectly describes a study as showing that gun control laws reduce violence (“Gun-Control Groups Push Growing Evidence That Laws Reduce Violence,” October 11th). But the study — by the Center for American Progress — never examines how rates of violence change before and after gun laws are adopted. The study simply compares violence rates across states. Yet, states have a lot of differences beyond what gun control laws are on their books. The Center for American Progress does not account for any factors such as differences in law enforcement (e.g., arrest rates), demographics, and income. For example, rural states have higher suicide rates partially because the male/female ratio is so out of balance. More useful academic research follows states over time to see how rates of violence change with the adoption of different laws. These changes are then compared to the states that did not change their laws. Sincerely, John R. Lott, Jr., Ph.D. President Crime Prevention Research Center

No, it's the Muslim hatred of Christians, and their love of killing them, that liberals love. The liberals would do the same if they could get away with it.

You can't tell what slugs will do in any given smooth bore until you test them. The Lightfield Hybreds always work for me, and they also work when they hit the deer or bear I shoot with them. Some slugs are made to be really accurate, like the BRI's, but they are also very hard and penetrate without much expansion, so you will have to expect to track the deer after you shoot it. But you can expect a decent blood trail to follow.

The OP fails to realize the Muslim World was the one that ignited a religious war. How many Christians have they murdered in their genocidal jihad so far? Men, women, children and their defenders have all been brutally murdered, some burned alive. Too bad there aren't any "paid informants" to stop them. I guess their enemies just aren't worth protecting.

UNIVERSAL Background checks don't work unless every firearm is registered. There is no other way to know it's transfer history. That's why the anti-gun Leftists are pushing it. It leads to confiscation. Plus, they get to decide what qualifies as a reason to deny your right to own a firearm. DWI, false arrest, incorrect info in your file, a visit to a doctor for a brain problem, being a veteran, being old, and being a Conservative have all been suggested as good reasons to deny a gun purchase. And that's just the short list. And if She Satan wins this election, you will see Leftist SCOTUS replacements create a Leftist majority, who will rule the 2nd Amendment can be infringed as much as the government wants to infringe on it, and all of this will be legal to do. Anyone who thinks giving that much power to a government that isn't your friend, is nuts!

I've said this before, but some people don't seem to want to comprehend the truth. "Gun Violence" is Leftist Liberal Code Speak for "GANG VIOLENCE"! Control the gangs and the criminals who have guns and 90% of all crimes committed with a firearm will disappear. Not doing so simply creates a huge black market for another commodity like drugs, whores and even cigarettes. Remember how Prohibition created Al Capone's empire? The CDC was being asked to write a conclusion to a study, prior to it being done. They were NOT going to separate criminal use of guns, from LEGAL use of guns, by law enforcement, or citizens using them to stay alive. That's why the NRA and the GOP were against it! And that's why Democrats are to be ignored! They do not have your rights, or the citizen's best interests in mind. They want you disarmed! I'll let you extrapolate on the reason why. Any gun owner or hunter who supports the Democrat's gun ban agenda, has been blindly indoctrinated into the Leftist Progressive gun ban agenda and has stopped seeking the truth and thinking for themselves. Their hatred for Conservatives drives them more than any form of analytical thinking. If it's a FACT gun control does NOT control crime or criminals, and that's an indisputable FACT, what the hell are we doing it for??? GUESS!!

Why do you guys keep saying "gun deaths"? Sure, if you confiscate a lot of the responsible gun owners firearms, you take a lot of guns out of the hands of citizens and you will see fewer "gun deaths". (BTW, these "gun death" numbers also include justifiable homicides, justified police shootings and legal self defense shootings. You want those lowered too?) But do you see fewer deaths overall? Fewer suicides? Fewer murders? NO! So stop pushing this anti-gun crap using Orwellian double speak. These are anti-gun talking points and it's obvious you have swallowed them. Taking guns away and having laws that only effect law abiding people does NOT reduce CRIME! And if it doesn't, why do you guys think it's a good idea? Does it make you feel good to know fewer people get shot, but more got knifed and blugdeoned? Or do you just think less freedom and more government control is a good thing?

The "system" is the best in the world. The corruption employed by those in power who control it, is what makes it bad.