Trapping School November 21-22 South Jersey

I know two of the instructors and if you put forth a little effort you'll learn a lot!
 BPB


SOUTH JERSEY TRAPPING AND SNARING SCHOOL
November 21-22
Cost $300.00 for both days $200.00 for 1 day.
The School starts at 7:00AM till whenever you want to quit (9:00-10:00 PM ?
Held, 7 Bates lane Port Republic NJ 08241
We cover it all. Foot Hold traps, Cage traps, Foot Snares, Leg snares, DP'S, Body Grip traps, Snares and Cable restraints.
Dry land, Water and Tide water trapping.
Skinning and fur put up, Typo maps and such ,Trap and snare adjustment, Lure, etc. after dark.

Instructors:
Morgan Bennett 410-943-4623 (Maryland)
Ron Jones 856-863-4168 (New Jersey)
Newt Sterling 609-748-3541 (New Jersey

If your looking for reasonable priced ammo I have limited amounts of this on hand. 9mm~50 cartridges per box 124 gr 9mm 30 boxes.

380 ACP

  115gr 9mm,40 S&W , 45ACP FMJ & 230 gr HP
 600 -223 62 gr Green tip $300.00 includes ammo can & spoons .
 Willing to separate @ $5.40 per 10 round clip.
 223 55gr FMJ @ .54c each.
30-06 are $27.50 per box inc. sales tax.
 300WM are $33.00.
Also have 308-25/06-243-7mm-280- Winchester and Federal standard hunting loads.
12ga~16ga~20ga~.410 slugs and shot shells

ETR7 Pistol and 12 ga  Powder $18.00 per pound. (ETR Powder is the Spanish CSB used in Rio munitions)

 Email me and I'll send you a price list. Regards, BPB

Ammo Maker Expands, But Not To Granite Dells

Ammo Maker Expands, But Not To Granite Dells

HPR founder says existing plant will remain in Payson

         

By Pete Aleshire

 

Advanced Tactical Armament Concepts will build a $554 million ammunition making plant with 605 employees in Tennessee, but will continue to operate its much smaller manufacturing operation in Payson indefinitely owner Jim Antich told the Roundup this week.

#The company, which manufactures HPR Ammunition, will actually expand operations in Payson, increasing output from 25 million rounds to 100 million rounds. That will boost the number of employees from about 45 at present to about 60.

#However, the company has dropped plans to build the expansion of its ammunition manufacturing in Payson and pulled out of a plan to buy 100 acres in Granite Dells, which drew opposition from some local residents seeking to protect the popular hiking area.

#“But we’re not leaving Payson. We’re going to use Payson for the next two years for research and development for the expansion. We have no plans at all in the near future or the long future of closing Payson. Our employees know that — we’re spending money on expansion right now. We’ll be hiring people and growing the capacity in Payson — it’ll be nothing but good things.”

#Antich said he’s convinced that the company could have eventually won over the critics of the plan to expand operations in the Granite Dells property — but in the end decided the company needed more room than the site would have provided.

#The Tennessee site totals some 235 acres, which will accommodate a 300,000-square-foot facility. If the company had built the expansion in Payson, it would have provided more jobs than the school district and the Town of Payson combined — making it the single biggest employer in the region.

#“We started in Payson and we’ll always be in Payson,” said Antich. “The town management has been wonderful with us — but Fox Farm just didn’t work. We could have mitigated the public opposition, but it just didn’t fit. We only had about 20 acres of usable space, but in reality we’d have had to tear mountains down.”

#The company backed away from purchasing the site, which in the meantime the Town of Payson annexed. Previously, the property lay within Star Valley, although it was surrounded by Forest Service land.

#Antich said the company will start to automate some of its operations in Payson, with the use of robots to handle some phases of the manufacture. Experimentation with production in Payson will then help guide the construction of the facility in Tennessee, which will take two or three years to build.

#Newspapers in Tennessee trumpeted the opening of the ammunition manufacturing plant in Alcoa, just south of Knoxville and not far from the Oak Ridge Laboratories.

#The Tennessee Valley Authority, Alcoa Electric Department, the Economic Development Commission and other groups partnered with Advanced Munitions International (AMI), the parent company of HPR. Local officials worked in cooperation to recruit the major source of relatively high-end jobs, aided by the presence of Oak Ridge Laboratories.

#An article in the Chattanooga Times quoted Tennessee Gov. Bill Haslam as saying, “I want to thank AMI for their substantial investment in Tennessee and for the more than 600 jobs they will create in Blount County. This is an industry leader creating jobs that require a highly skilled workforce as we continue toward our goal of becoming No. 1 location in the southeast for high-quality jobs.”

#The story noted that AMI specializes in producing ammunition for the military and the Alcoa plant will hire mostly chemists and engineers with backgrounds in metallurgy, engineering, physics and energetics technology.

22 Long Rifle Ammo~ Continues to be Elusive

A 3 year drought of 22lr was preventable if you had  planned properly.

A comment I made on a forum today:

As a FFL I'm getting all kinds of flyers on what a great deal I can get.  NOT at .10c or more per round.
 $500.00 for 5k case. And what do I charge? 30% mark up doesn't even sound reasonable.
One outfit wants to sell me a bucket of 1400 Remington Thunderduds for $139.00. While China Mart has the same bucket priced @ $69.00.

 I've been telling guys to start down loading their smaller center fire cartridges.

Heck you could purchase a HR 357 rifle. Load & shoot 38's and still be under the $500.00 per case price.

Take your 38 brass and reload it with you home poured 38's. A pinch of powder and primer and I figure not including you equipment cost, a person could load 6,000 38's for $300.00.

Regards BPB

PS. If you need those components or a simple reloading single stage press. Please contact me. I can help you through the process.

The Enviromentalist Rhetoric Guide

http://www.michigancapitolconfidential.com/21666

 

The Environmentalist Rhetoric Guide

Authors of dubious Michigan 'business leaders' poll on Obama energy plan also craft movement spin

      

By JACK SPENCER | Aug. 28, 2015

Market research surveys commissioned by one of the nation’s largest environmentalist groups advises activists to “talk about yourselves as conservationists — not environmentalists,” “do not make global warming/climate change the primary rationale for conservation,” “do not use the threat of ‘sprawl’ unless with core supporters,” and “do not focus on ‘green’ jobs as a primary rationale for conservation.”

These quotes are found in a pair of documents, one from 2004 and one from 2013, that expose what might be called the environmental movement’s political messaging intended for public consumption.

The documents are based on research commissioned by The Nature Conservancy, which is generally considered to be less strident than most environmentalist organizations. The older one is located on a website of the Maryland Department of Natural Resources, among the “course documents” for “Communicating Conservation to Citizens: Communications Course 2009.”

The documents take the form of reports by two opinion research firms, Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin, Metz & Associates; and Public Opinion Strategies. These same companies were used recently to provide a dubious and nontransparent poll claiming a majority of "Michigan’s business leaders” support President Barack Obama’s proposed Clean Power Plan.
The reports include comments such as “scientists clearly link global warming to increasingly extreme weather events.” Such unqualified statements reveal the point of view of the researchers, which is expressed along with the findings of their research.
Here are a few excerpts from the documents:
From the 2004 document — “Do talk about yourselves as ‘conservationists’ — not ‘environmentalists.’  This bears repeating. Voters are more likely to view themselves as ‘conservationists’ than ‘environmentalists.’ Moreover, in the focus groups, there was a decided skepticism about the agendas of some ‘environmental groups’ who engage in land preservation.”
From the 2013 document — “Do not make global warming/climate change the primary rationale for conservation. While scientists clearly link global warming to increasingly extreme weather events that affect the safety of people and communities, it is not yet perceived similarly by the public. The most politically polarizing rationales for conservation are those that position climate change as the primary reason for engaging in conservation. Republicans and Independents rated these messages significantly lower than other rationales in support of conservation.”
“However, referring to climate change in passing as part of a broader argument for conservation has generally not had a significant impact — positive or negative — on responses. In the interest of continuing to expand and reinforce public attention to this vital issue, incorporating subtle references to climate change into otherwise strong messages may be advisable. This, however, is an area where location specific research is likely critical.”
From the 2004 document, and stressed again in the 2013 document — “Do talk about water first and foremost. Water cannot be stressed enough, and really it doesn’t matter how you say it. In fact, voters prioritize water as a critical reason to purchase and protect land, no matter how it is expressed: vast majorities of those polled see it as ‘very important’ to buy land to protect drinking water quality (84 percent); improve the water quality in our lakes, streams and rivers (75 percent); protect lakes, rivers and streams (72 percent); and protect watersheds (66 percent).”
“Moreover, water is tops in every region (not just the perennially thirsty West) and rates just as high in big cities (85 percent very important) as rural areas (84 percent). Most importantly, this data substantiates one of the things we heard in focus groups throughout the West — voters closely link land conservation with protecting water.”
2013 — “Do turn voters’ views of a tough Mother Nature to your advantage — by showing how conservation of critical natural defenses keeps communities safe. Whether wildfire, flooding, or hurricanes, voters tend to think of nature as being a force with which to be reckoned. That ‘one tough lady’ image can pose problems — the concept of ‘resilience’ actually serves to make voters less likely to feel we need to engage in restoration projects in recent focus groups along the Gulf Coast — but can also be an advantage. The idea that ‘natural defenses’ can serve as flood controls or storm-barriers is credible and resonates from Louisiana to North Dakota.”
2013 — “Do not count on public support for conservation unless you work to make it happen. Conservation is less of a concern today than in the recent past; economic issues have pushed it further down the list of most pressing concerns in voters’ minds. While voters value land, water and wildlife and want to conserve them, issues related to conservation simply are not everyday concerns for them. In recent research in six western states, we found that a majority (54 percent) admitted they had no idea of the position their Member of Congress has taken on protecting land and water.”

2013 — “Do not focus on ‘green’ jobs as a primary rationale for conservation. While the economy still tops voters’ priorities in our own polling, voters continue to find other traditional aspirational rationales for conservation more resonant — like leaving a legacy for future generations and protecting sources of clean air and water. In addition, some of the language used to describe these jobs can be off putting. Many do not understand the term ‘sustainable’ for instance. Similarly, many voters are tired of the term ‘green.’”

2004 — “Do not use ‘endangered species’ as interchangeable with wildlife — voters view them differently. While voters are broadly supportive of protecting wildlife, the focus groups demonstrated that ‘endangered species’ is a more polarizing term. Voters can point to examples where environmental regulations have held up important projects in order to protect what many deem to be obscure and unimportant species.”

2004 — “Do not say ‘open space.’ ‘Open space’ is not one of the better terms to use in the vocabulary of conservation, and ‘urban open space’ is even worse. In the focus groups, voters perceived ‘open space’ as empty land, not near them, and did not necessarily see how they benefited from it or could use it. ‘Urban open space’ was perceived as a bench between skyscrapers, or an abandoned lot.”

2004 — “Do not use the threat of ‘sprawl’ unless with core supporters. In the focus groups, ‘sprawl’ tended to elicit the most emotionally negative response of any words or phrases tested. However, it rated weakest of anything tested as a reason a state or local community should buy and protect land from development (only 41 percent rate it as a very important reason). ‘Reducing sprawl’ as a goal rates only slightly higher among urban voters (46 percent), but among more liberal audiences and traditionally more liberal urban areas, ‘sprawl’ can resonate. Fully 51 percent of self-described liberal voters nationally rate ‘reducing sprawl’ as a very important reason for their state or local community to buy land and protect it from development. In addition, voters living in mostly coastal urban centers — from DC to Boston, the entire West coast, and along the Great Lakes (Chicago, Detroit and up to Buffalo) rate sprawl 15 points higher than those in the interior U.S. or along Southern coasts.”

2004 — “Do not allow your effort to be positioned as anti-growth. The focus group research points to voters viewing growth as inevitable. They want growth that is well-planned, responsible, and does not negatively impact their overall quality of life. In fact, ‘protecting quality of life’ is the fourth highest rated reason for government to fund land conservation (70 percent very important reason).”

Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin, Metz & Associates (FM3) has not as yet responded to a phone call offering it an opportunity to comment. Neither has the Nature Conservancy.

SLOGANS ARE NOT SOLUTIONS by Budd Schroeder

THE RIGHT SIDE

BY BUDD SCHROEDER

SEPTEMBER 2, 2015

 

                                                         SLOGANS ARE NOT SOLUTIONS

 

              Another senseless murder happened recently and as expected, there has been a huge outpouring of “more gun control” by the liberal left.  The advocates of gun control are determined to destroy the protections of honest citizens afforded by the Second Amendment which says “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”  One of the main definitions of the term “infringed” is “violated.”  Speaks for itself.

 

              First of all there should be a better definition of the problem.  The liberal media and politicians use the term “gun violence.”  A better and more accurate description would be “criminal misuse of firearms.”  The problem is with the criminals, not with the tool, the gun. 

              Let’s look at the facts of the murders.  It was an African American shooting two Caucasians and yet the media has not labeled it as a racist hate crime. This seems to be the battle cry when an African American is murdered by a Caucasian.   It should be considered both ways.  The liberals keep calling for “equality” so why not insist that it be included in crimes?

 

              The killer bought the gun after passing a background check, so that is not the problem.  It is proof that evil people can pass background checks.  This opens the door for some real intrusions into background checks.  We also know that the government is exempt from HIPPA laws and can get any information they want.

              With the New York SAFE act the government invades medical records to determine if a person might be “a danger to himself or others” and runs the data against those who have pistol permits.  If a person in some defined medical occupation like a doctor, nurse or even a social worker has an opinion that a person fits into that category they can file a report.  The State Police end up with the chain of data transfers and can have the pistol permit suspended and all guns confiscated.

              This doesn’t require an arrest; just a line in a report of the opinion and then it is carried out without due process.  The bureaucrats and State Police think this is due process.  It is time consuming and expensive to challenge the information in the report.  What happens is that the person (who is not notified that the report is being made) gets blind sided with the notice of confiscation.

              There is no hearing by a judge or at least a psychiatrist or psychologist to verify that the report is true and that there actually is a problem with the person.  Just the opinion of a semi-educated person in a medical facility can cause the State Police (or local law enforcement) to confiscate all the person’s guns.  A serious breach of first, second, fourth and fourteenth amendment rights should have all the protections necessary to maintain and retain those rights.

 

              However, as a federal bureaucrat said: “Never let a good crisis go to waste.”  Therefore the anti-gun vultures hover around and keep looking for more opportunities to diminish Second Amendment rights.  They will call for stricter and more background checks as the answer, maybe even try to amend the law to actually require a letter from a psychiatrist or psychologist to go with the background check. That should diminish the number of people who are willing to do that in order to buy a gun.  The liberal left would count that as a huge win. 

 

              Their objective is to have fewer people owning guns thinking that would reduce gun violence.  They are wrong.  It won’t work because criminals don’t obey laws and if they can’t pass a background check they get their guns illegally.  This is a fact of criminal life.

 

              How much of a problem is there with criminal misuse of firearms?  Let’s look at the data.  There are an estimated one hundred million gun owners in America.  We do have a high per capita ownership of guns.  The estimated number of deaths (including suicides which amount to about half the deaths) is under 40,000.  That means that more than ninety-nine and three quarters percent of gun owners are not criminals.  Most Americans wish we had that high a percentage of honest politicians. 

              To address the problem properly, we have to define the problem.  It is not a gun problem, but a criminal problem and this should be the focus of the laws.  Felons cannot legally own firearms, so it stands to reason the focus should be on the criminal.

             We need more and better mental health care and facilities, but that is an expensive undertaking and doesn’t meet with much enthusiasm in the legislative chambers.  It may be that the liberal politicians and media will continue with lots of slogans and very few (if any) solutions.  If they can make the voters think they are doing something about the problem that is good enough.  In politics perception IS reality. If it gets votes the politicians are satisfied.

Global Warming is About Over Throwing Capitalism!

Shop BlackPowderBill for 9mm cartridges

Hmmmm Ya don't say

Aug 26, 2015, 6:20 PM

 

http://greenjihad.net/2015/08/19/naomi-klein-admits-global-warming-is-not-about-science-but-destroying-capitalism/

 

Naomi Klein admits global warming is not about science but destroying capitalism

Posted on August 19, 2015by gjihad

The Heartland Institute published a very revealing article about Leftist shock jock Naomi Klein who just published a new anti-capitalst screed entitled This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. the Climate. Essentially, Ms. Klein admits that the issue of climate change (formerly known as global warming) is not about science but really about overthrowingcapitalism.

“Our economic model is at war with the Earth,” writes Klein. “We cannot change the laws of nature. But we can change our economy. Climate change is our best chance to demand and build a better world.”

The Heartland article goes on to say:

For the author, this completely boring, run-of-the-mill flight delay became a flight of fancy, inspiring her new work. This flight delay, she reasoned, was evidence of climate change. Who cares, she added, if we know that the solar cycles impact the planet, even more than CO2 emissions ever could. Science is not the point, but it makes for a great alibi. “The really inconvenient truth is that it’s not about carbon—it’s about capitalism. The convenient truth is that we can seize this existential crisis to transform our failed economic system and build something radically better,” she writes.

Another motivational moment for Klein, a single mother, happened when she was reading a children’s book to her son. The story was about a moose. She worried that the young lad would “never seen a moose” in his life. Then, reading another children’s book, this one about bats, she worried that the boy would “never see a bat.” Her overly emotional reactions to everyday things — plane delays, reading bed time stories to junior — are something that she feels must motivate us all to give up our way of life.

I am sure Ms. Klein has no problem traveling by plane, car, or train in order to promote herself or her publications. If global warming is not about science then I guess, in Klein’s mind, her promotion without regard for her carbon footprint is justified since if people like her are successful then her emissions won’t matter. Yet she has no problem enjoying all of the benefits of capitalism while condemning it in word but not deed. However, those of us on the side of civilization and reason owe people like Klein a debt of gratitude for their honesty. Naomi Klein is open about what environmentalists deny or refuse to admit and the greens probably cringe every time she opens her pathetic mouth.

Ms. Klein isn’t the first to communicate the Left’s blunt honesty about climate change. During October of last year, PJMedia posted this revealing article soon after a climate change event in Oakland, California. The article reveals a strong far Left presence at the ceremony during September 21st. Here is a video of the keynote speaker taken at the gathering: